HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-MD-0000886-2010IN RE: CHEVROLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
BLAZER 4X4 VIN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
# 1 GCT 18Z7J017754 PA
REGISTRATION #GLK503 CP -21 -MD -0886-2010
IN RE: PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
OLER, J., April 18, 2011.
In this case involving the seizure of a Chevrolet Blazer four-by-four vehicle (the
vehicle) by the Pennsylvania State Police (the police) in furtherance of an ongoing
criminal investigation, Petitioner has filed the Petition To Return Property sub judice,
contending that he is entitled to regain lawful possession of said vehicle without cost to
him.1
A hearing on the petition was held on January 18, 2011. For the reasons stated in
this opinion, the petition will be granted.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The evidence presented at the hearing may be summarized as follows: On August
4, 2010, the police were investigating a home invasion that occurred on West Springville
Road, South Middleton Township, Pennsylvania.2 Petitioner, Daniel Lee Rouner, an adult
individual residing at 18 Old State Road, Gardners, Pennsylvania,3 was a stabbing victim
in the course of the home invasion.4 After further investigation, the police believed that
Petitioner might have been one of the actors involved in the home invasion.5
' Petition To Return Property, filed Nov. 3, 2010.
2 Draft Notes of Testimony, January 18, 2011, at 12 (hereinafter N.T. _). A draft of the transcript of the
Notes of Testimony from the hearing held on January 18, 2011 was used throughout this opinion and
page cites in the opinion may therefore vary slightly from those which the final transcript would generate.
s N.T. 2.
4 N.T. 12.
s N.T. 13.
On the morning of August 4, 2010, Petitioner was interviewed by the police at
Carlisle Hospital.6 During the interview, Petitioner told the police that his vehicle was
parked at a park-and-ride in Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania located near a fishing hole .7
Petitioner's vehicle was not parked at that location in Boiling Springs,8 but was found
parked near his cousin's home located at 32 Center Street, Mount Holly Springs,
Pennsylvania.9 On August 4, 2010, Petitioner's vehicle was towed to "Hippensteel's,"10
located on Route 233, Newville, Pennsylvania." On August 18, 2010, a search warrant
was obtained. 12 Following the search, 13 items were seized from the vehicle as part of the
ongoing home invasion investigation. 14 Petitioner has not been charged in connection
with the home invasion, but the matter is still under investigation. 15
Approximately a week following the search and seizure of the vehicle, Trooper
Kenneth F. Tallman (Trooper Tallman) contacted Petitioner's residence. 16 Trooper
Tallman spoke with Petitioner's mother and informed her that Petitioner's vehicle was
released from police custody. 17
When Petitioner went to Hippensteel's to retrieve the
vehicle, he was notified that he was responsible for the costs associated with towing and
6 N.T. 12.
7 N.T. 13.
s Petitioner testified that he was not sure where he parked his car because "[he] was high at the time."
N.T. 7-8.
9 N.T. 13.
10 N.T. 13.
" N.T. 16.
12 N.T. 15. The police arguably had reason to search Petitioner's vehicle due to Petitioner's failure to
accurately disclose where his vehicle was parked and because, when the vehicle was located, it was found
within close proximity to the site of the home invasion. N.T. 13.
13 Trooper Tallman testified that Sergeant John Mays, who was then stationed at the Carlisle Police
Barracks but has since been transferred, applied for a search warrant. Trooper Tallman further testified
that Sergeant Mays performed the search on Petitioner's vehicle. N.T. 14.
14 N.T. 14-15.
15 N.T. 16.
16 N.T. 15.
17 N.T. 15. Trooper Kenneth F. Tallman opined that, after the police "released" the vehicle, they did not
have any further control over it. N.T. 15.
2
storage.'8 At that time, Petitioner did not pay the towing or storage fees, but stated that he
would contact his lawyer. 19
On November 3, 2010, Petitioner filed the present Petition To Return Property,
alleging ownership of the seized vehicle and requesting the return of said property.20 On
December 1, 2010, the Commonwealth filed its Answer To Petition, admitting that
Petitioner was the owner of the vehicle and stating that Petitioner was informed of his
right to regain lawful possession upon payment of towing and storage costs in the amount
of $560.00.21
DISCUSSION
Motion for Return of Property. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
588, a person who has been subject to a search and seizure of property may move for the
return of such property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful possession. Pa.
R. Crim. P. 588(a). Proceedings under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588 are
civil in form and quasi -criminal in character. In re One 1988 Toyota Corolla, 675 A.2d
1290, 1295 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). The moving party has the initial burden of
establishing his or her entitlement to lawful possession. Com. v. Howard, 931 A.2d 129,
131 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). The Commonwealth must then prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the seized property is contraband or derivative contraband. Id.
Following a hearing, the property shall be restored unless the court determines that the
property is contraband. Pa. R. Crim. P. 588(b).
Allocation of Costs. Under Pennsylvania law, it is well established that a criminal
defendant who is convicted is responsible for the costs associated with prosecution,
meaning the costs necessary to secure a conviction. Com. v. Durham, 2010 PA Super
216, 9 A.3d 641, 650. Such costs would include the towing and storage of a vehicle that
" N.T. 3; The current amount of accrued costs against Petitioner is unclear. However, according to the
Commonwealth's answer to the petition, Petitioner must pay $560.00 to Hippensteel's. Commonwealth's
Answer To Petition To Return Property, ¶ 6, filed Dec. 1, 2010.
19 N.T. 3.
20 Petition To Return Property, filed Nov. 3, 2010.
21 Commonwealth's Answer To Petition To Return Property, filed Dec. 1, 2010.
3
was properly seized as evidence in an investigation. Id. However, during the
investigatory process, "[a]ll necessary expenses incurred by the district attorney or his
assistants or any office directed by him in the investigation of crime and the apprehension
and prosecution of persons charged with or suspected of the commission of crime" are to
be paid through the general funds of the county. 16 P.S. § 1403. When a defendant is
convicted and sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, the expenses incurred by the
district attorney in connection with prosecution "shall be considered a part of the costs of
the case and be paid by the defendant." Id.
Application of Law to Facts. With respect to Petitioner's request for return of
property, the facts necessary to a determination of whether the vehicle should be returned
to Petitioner's possession are not in dispute. The Commonwealth does not deny
Petitioner's claim of ownership and agrees that the vehicle no longer has evidentiary
value, as evidenced by the vehicle's release from police custody to the right of Petitioner
to retrieve his property. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to regain his property.
With respect to the costs of towing and storage, Petitioner states that he should not
be liable for the costs associated with reclaiming his property. Petitioner has not been
charged with any crimes associated with the home invasion investigation. In the event
that Petitioner is charged and tried as a criminal defendant in association with the home
invasion, he may then be responsible for the costs necessary for prosecution, including
towing and storage fees associated with the vehicle, in the event of a conviction. Prior
thereto, these fees are investigatory costs, payable by the county.
In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition To
Return Property, following a hearing held on January 18, 2011, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying opinion, Defendant's petition is granted to the extent that the Commonwealth is
directed to take such steps as are necessary to secure the return of Defendant's Chevrolet Blazer
to him, without prejudice to the Commonwealth's right to recoup any costs involved in the event
of a conviction of Petitioner.
E
BY THE COURT,
s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Derek R. Clepper
Senior Assistant District Attorney
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Daniel Rouner
IN RE: CHEVROLET IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
BLAZER 4X4 VIN CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
# 1 GCT 18Z7J017754 PA
REGISTRATION #GLK503 CP -21 -MD -0886-2010
IN RE: PETITION TO RETURN PROPERTY
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition To
Return Property, following a hearing held on January 18, 2011, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying opinion, Defendant's petition is granted to the extent that the Commonwealth is
directed to take such steps as are necessary to secure the return of Defendant's Chevrolet Blazer
to him, without prejudice to the Commonwealth's right to recoup any costs involved in the event
of a conviction of Petitioner.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Derek R. Clepper
Senior Assistant District Attorney
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Daniel Rouner