Com. v. Binkley, Z.

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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-