Com. v. Binkley, Z. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J. S71009/14
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,              :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :           PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant        :
    :
    v.                     :           No. 605 MDA 2014
    :
    ZACHERY TAYLOR BINKLEY                     :
    Appeal from the Order Entered March 11, 2014,
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
    Criminal Division at No. CP-21-CR-0002184-2013
    BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA AND FITZGERALD,* JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:              FILED JANUARY 27, 2015
    The Commonwealth appeals from the March 11, 2014 order, granting
    the motion to suppress filed by Zachery Taylor Binkley. We affirm.1
    Appellee was arrested pursuant to a warrant that was later determined
    to be inactive.   He filed a motion to suppress, which was initially denied.
    Thereafter,    appellee   filed   a   motion   for   reconsideration   relying   on
    Commonwealth v. Johnson, 
    86 A.3d 182
     (Pa. 2014), wherein the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the suppression of evidence seized
    incident to an arrest based upon an invalid (expired) arrest warrant in
    * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    We note preliminarily that this appeal is properly before us pursuant to
    Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(d).
    J. S71009/14
    reliance upon the Edmunds2 construction of Article 1, Section 8.             On
    March 11, 2014, the court granted appellee’s motion for reconsideration,
    vacated its prior order, and dismissed the charges finding Johnson
    controlling. This appeal followed.
    The   Commonwealth      argues   that   Edmunds,    and   by   extension,
    Johnson, were wrongly decided and suggests the “good faith” exception to
    the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
    Constitution should apply in Pennsylvania. See U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S 897
    (1984). However, as the Commonwealth acknowledges, as an intermediate
    appellate court, we are bound to effectuate the decisional law of the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court.          See Art. 5 § 1 of the Pennsylvania
    Constitution.   See generally Commonwealth v. Busch, 
    713 A.2d 97
    (Pa.Super. 1998).        Consequently, no relief is due.     Suppression was
    warranted as Edmunds and Johnson make clear that even if the officer
    believed the warrant was valid upon execution, the police are not entitled to
    a good faith exception. Johnson, supra at 187.
    Order affirmed.
    2
    Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 
    586 A.2d 887
     (Pa. 1991).
    -2-
    J. S71009/14
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/27/2015
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 605 MDA 2014

Filed Date: 1/27/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024