Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0000327-2011COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA u JAMES DELANO INGRAM : CP -21 -CR -0327-2011 IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., September 26, 2011. In this criminal case, Defendant has been charged with several drug act and Crimes Code offenses: persons not to possess firearms, possession with intent to deliver a Schedule 11 controlled substance (cocaine), possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I controlled substance (marijuana), simple possession of a Schedule 11 controlled substance (cocaine), simple possession of a Schedule I controlled substance (marijuana), possession of a small amount of marijuana, and false identification to law enforcement.' For disposition at this time is Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. A hearing was held on the motion on July 21, 2011. STATEMENT OF FACTS At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth presented (a) the testimony of the affiant, a Carlisle Borough police officer,' and (b) two exhibits — a search warrane and a receipt and inventory of items seized in a search pursuant to the warrant .5 The testimony presented at the hearing may be summarized as follows: ' Information, filed April 5, 2011. 2 Defendant's Omnibus Pre -Trial Motion, filed May 9, 2011. s N.T. 4-41, Suppression Hearing, July 21, 2011 (hereinafter N.T. �. 4 Commonwealth's Exhibit 1, Suppression Hearing, July 21, 2011 (hereinafter "Commonwealth's Exhibit 1" s Commonwealth's Exhibit 2, Suppression Hearing, July 21, 2011 (hereinafter "Commonwealth's Exhibit 2" On Thursday, January 27, 2011, the affiant, a Carlisle Borough police corporal, and a Carlisle Borough police sergeant travelled to 436 North Pitt Street in the borough to locate Defendant pursuant to an active warrant originating in North Carolina.6 In addition to information about Defendant's address, the officers also had information regarding Defendant's height, weight, sex and race .7 After encountering Defendant, who answered the door and who matched the description of the subject of the arrest warrant, and after his protest that he was not the man for whom the search warrant was issued and his identification of himself by a name different from that on the warrant, Defendant was placed under arrest.$ At the time of Defendant's arrest, the front door of his residence was open,9 prompting Defendant to request that the police shut and lock his door.10 Although the door could be locked by engaging a button on the interior doorknob,' 1 the affiant decided to enter the residence and went into Defendant's bedroom in the rear of the premises, where, according to his testimony, he conducted a search for a key to engage a separate deadbolt lock on the door. 12 Ultimately, in one of the furniture drawers in the bedroom, he discovered what he believed to be conttraband.13 The affiant left the house upon being advised by radio that Defendant was objecting to his presence in the residence. 14 The affiant's discovery of suspected contraband on the premises formed the basis of an application for a search warrant, 15 the execution of which produced various items of evidence against Defendant. 16 6 N.T. 6-7. N.T. 8, 10. 'N.T. 8, 10-11. 9 N.T. 12. 10 N.T. 12-13, 62. " N.T. 27-29. 12 N. T. 14. 13 N. T. 15-16. 14 N.T. 16-17,46,55. 15 N. T. 16, 18. 2 Defendant's challenge to the Commonwealth's evidence is premised upon (a) the warrantless entry of Defendant's residence without clear consent to the entry and (b) the warrantless search of the furniture drawer inside Defendant's bedroom without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 17 DISCUSSION Statement of Law Burden and standard of proof. On a motion to suppress, "[t]he Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant's rights." Pa. R. Crim. P. 581(H). The degree of proof required is a preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Stoops, 723 A.2d 184, 186 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). Search and seizure. The Bill of Rights in the federal constitution includes the following provision: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Article 1, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution also provides that "[t]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant." PA CONST. art 1, § 8. 16 N. T. 18, 20-21. 17 Defendant's Omnibus Pre -Trial Motion, filed May 9, 2011. 3 In Pennsylvania, it is well recognized that "[a] warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 8, subject to a few specifically established, well -delineated exceptions." Commonwealth v. Dean, 2008 PA Super 3, ¶5, 940 A.2d 514, 519. One of these established exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant is consent to the search on the part of a residence's occupant. Commonwealth v. Edwards, 1999 PA Super 183, ¶6, 735 A.2d 723, 725. The Edwards court required that the consent be "unequivocal, specific, and voluntary." Id. Scope of consent. "The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of `objective' reasonableness — what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?" Commonwealth v. Yedinak, 450 Pa. Super. 352, 358, 676 A.2d 1217, 1220 (1996), citing Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991). Validity of resultant search warrant. To determine the validity of a search warrant issued partly upon information obtained through unlawful police conduct, "[a court] must consider whether, absent the information obtained through the illegal activity, probable cause existed to issue the warrant." Commonwealth v. Shaw, 476 Pa. 543, 555, 383 A.2d 496, 502 (1978). Application of Law to Facts In the present case, the court is unable to find that Defendant's request that his outside door be locked, under the circumstances recounted above, could objectively be construed as an unequivocal and specific consent for police to proceed into his home and search drawers in his bedroom, notwithstanding the subjective belief that the affiant may have had to the contrary. Accordingly the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Pre -Trial Motion in the form of a motion to suppress, following a hearing held on July 21, 2011, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and the evidence obtained as a result of the affiant's warrantless entry into Defendant's residence and discovery of suspected contraband is suppressed. 11 BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire Chief Public Defender COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA u JAMES DELANO INGRAM : CP -21 -CR -0327-2011 IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BEFORE OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2011, upon consideration of Defendant's Omnibus Pre -Trial Motion in the form of a motion to suppress, following a hearing held on July 21, 2011, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and the evidence obtained as a result of the affiant's warrantless entry into Defendant's residence and discovery of suspected contraband is suppressed. BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Timothy L. Clawges, Esquire Chief Public Defender