HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-2239 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH
VS.
DONALD W. RICHMOND
AND NOW, this
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-2239 CRIMINAL
IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS
BEFORE HESS, J.
ORDER
day of April, 1998, the omnibus pretrial motion of the
defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT,
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Samuel Milkes, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
Hess, J.
:rlm
COMMONWEALTH
VS.
DONALD W. RICHMOND
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
97-2239 CRIMINAL
IN RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS
BEFORE HESS, J.
OPINION AND ORDER
On July 25, 1997 North Middleton police officers executed a search warrant in order to
take the defendant into custody and obtain "[al minimum of 25 handwriting exemplars from
Donald William Richmond, to be found at 1103 Trindle Road, Carlisle, PA 17013." Police
believed the defendant to be at this address based on information obtained earlier from an
individual named Kathryn Klapatch. She told the police that she was with the defendant when
he used a stolen credit card to make various purchases. The warrant did not state that the
premises were to be entered or searched. The police did, however, enter the home after
informing the defendant's mother that they had a search warrant and needed to enter. The
police then had to force their way into the defendant's separately locked bedroom by kicking
the door down. Upon entering, the police observed drug paraphernalia in plain view.
Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant may only be
issued to search for and seize:
a) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise
criminally possessed; or
b) property which is or has been used as the means of
committing a criminal offense; or
c) property which constitutes evidence of the
commission of a criminal offense.
Pa.R. Crim. P. 2002.
97-2239 CRIMINAL
Additionally, criminal proceedings in court cases may only be instituted when a written
complaint is filed, when a person commits a crime in the presence of an officer, when there is
probable cause to arrest for a felony, or when a statute authorizes arrest for a misdemeanor on
probable cause. See Pa.R.Crim. P. 101. "There are only a few exceptions to this Rule
regarding the instituting of criminal proceedings in court cases. Such proceedings may also be
instituted by presentment of an indicting grand jury based on the personal knowledge of the
jurors without any bill having been laid before them." .In Re Handwriting Exemplar of Neil
Casale, 512 Pa. 548, 553, 517 A.2d 1260, 1262 (1986). Also, when time is of the essence "or
for other good cause a preliminary hearing cannot be held, the attorney for the Commonwealth
may with leave of court submit a bill of indictment directly to an indicting grand jury." Id.
Therefore, "both federal and Pennsylvania cases require either the institution of regular
criminal proceedings before an order for a handwriting exemplar may issue or the authority
and control of an investigating grand jury if a district attorney undertakes to obtain such
evidence by legal compulsion before filing a complaint." Id. at 557, 517 A.2d at 1264.
In the case sub judice, neither of these two options were exercised. The handwriting
exemplars sought were not in existence yet and therefore could not be searched for and seized.
Handwriting exemplars are neither contraband, property, or evidence of a criminal offense that
exists at the time the warrant is issued. "A search warrant serves to authorize the seizure of
identifiable and existing property. It is not available as a general investigatory tool to be used
in the place of a grand jury." Id. at 554-55,517 A.2d at 1263.
Additionally, because the warrant was invalid, the drug paraphernalia seized in plain
2
97-2239 CRIMINAL
view as a result of the illegal search must be suppressed. "Inherent in the plain view doctrine
is the principle the seized object must not have been put in plain view as a result of unlawful
police conduct." .Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 454 Pa. 320, 327, 311 A.2d 914, 918 (1973).
Breaking into Mr. Richmond's room in order to transport him to the station house to obtain
handwriting exemplars was unlawful. In Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 84
L.Ed.2d 705 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held it was unlawful to take a suspect
into custody to obtain fingerprints. Casale reemphasized this by saying that police need "a
warrant, as well as probable cause to arrest, to justify the transportation of a suspect to the
station house for fmgerprinting, or any other detention which exceeds the limits authorized in
Terry_ v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)." Casals at 556, 517 A.2d
at 1264. The Commonwealth did not have a valid warrant or probable cause, and did not
proceed against Mr. Richmond in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
defendant was therefore unlawfully detained and any evidence seized as a result of that
detention must be suppressed.
AND NOW, this .2-o't day of April, 1998, the omnibus pretrial motion of the
defendant in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT,
. Hess, J.
97-2239 CRIMINAL
Jaime Keating, Esquire
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Samuel Milkes, Esquire
Assistant Public Defender
:rlm