Com. v. Watson, C.

J-S24015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CASSIUS WATSON
Appellant No. 2429 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 2, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0002469-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JUNE 12, 2015
Appellant, Cassius Watson, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial
conviction for persons not to possess firearms.1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.
On March 21, 2013, an employee at Sacred Heart Hospital in Allentown, PA,
looked through the window of a residence across the street from the hospital
and spotted Appellant holding a pistol. The employee called the police to
report what she saw. The responding officers noticed security cameras
around the residence and heavy books stacked up behind the front windows.
The officers knocked on the door, and Appellant answered. After the officers
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
J-S24015-15
relayed the information they had received over police radio, Appellant
initially claimed he did not have a gun and invited the officers into the
residence. When one officer asked about guns again, Appellant said he had
guns but they were “legal” and belonged to his sister. Appellant also
admitted he had been arrested for homicide years ago and was not allowed
to own a gun. The officers left and reported this information to Detective
Almonte, who confirmed Appellant had a prior manslaughter conviction.
At around 6:00 a.m. on March 22, 2013, Detective Almonte and
Detective Mriss set up surveillance near Appellant’s home. The detectives
observed Appellant drive away and return to the residence shortly
thereafter. When Appellant returned, the detectives advised Appellant they
were obtaining a search warrant for the residence based on information the
police had learned the previous day. After Detective Almonte secured the
warrant at 8:33 a.m.,2 the search began. The police recovered four guns
inside the residence. Appellant admitted the guns belonged to him.
Detective Mriss also saw a bag of cocaine in the kitchen but did not seize it.
The court issued a second search warrant for the drugs on March 22, 2013,
at 11:21 a.m. The police executed the warrant at 11:30 a.m. that day and
seized the cocaine inside Appellant’s home. Detective Almonte also secured
____________________________________________
2
The dates on the original warrant were accidentally transposed. The
magisterial district court mistakenly indicated that it issued the warrant at
8:33 a.m. on March 24, 2013, and the officers could serve the warrant no
later than 8:33 a.m. on March 22, 2013.
-2-
J-S24015-15
a third search warrant the same day for Appellant’s vehicle based on
Appellant’s admission he had five guns in total, but no evidence was found in
the car. Detective Almonte did not immediately return the original warrants
to the issuing court.
Detective Almonte gave Appellant a handwritten copy of the second
warrant package, which included the affidavit of probable cause and an
inventory list, after the searches were completed.3 The affidavit of probable
cause stated, inter alia, that a search warrant had already been executed on
Appellant’s residence on March 22, 2013, which resulted in the recovery of
multiple firearms. Although the second warrant was only for the seizure of
drugs, the inventory given to Appellant listed everything seized during both
searches of the residence, i.e., the drugs and all of the firearms. The
inventory stated that the search took place on March 22, 2013, at 8:33 a.m.
Approximately two weeks later, Detective Almonte returned to Appellant’s
residence and gave Appellant another copy of the second warrant package,
which contained a different inventory. This inventory listed only the drugs
recovered during the second search and indicated a search time of 11:30
a.m.
On August 9, 2013, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion,
____________________________________________
3
Detective Almonte also gave Appellant a copy of the third warrant package.
At the suppression hearing, Detective Almonte could not recall exactly when
he gave these copies to Appellant. Appellant testified that he received them
while he was in central booking on March 23, 2013, at 2:00 a.m.
-3-
J-S24015-15
including a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his residence. At
the suppression hearing on November 18, 2013, Detective Almonte filed the
original warrants with the court after he realized he had inadvertently left
them in his personal case file. Appellant was given new copies of each
warrant. The court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress on December 5,
2013.
On March 26, 2014, a jury convicted Appellant of one (1) count of
persons not to possess firearms. On May 2, 2014, the court sentenced
Appellant to a term of three-and-a-half (3½) to seven (7) years’
imprisonment. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which the court
denied on May 13, 2014. On June 16, 2014, Appellant filed a petition under
the Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”),4 requesting the court to reinstate
his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. The court granted Appellant’s PCRA
petition on July 28, 2014. Appellant filed a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc
on August 15, 2014. The court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant
timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
DID DETECTIVE AMAURY A[L]MONTE VIOLATE
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 208,
209, AND 210 WHEN HE FAILED TO PROVIDE ACCURATE
COPIES OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR [APPELLANT’S] HOME
____________________________________________
4
42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.
-4-
J-S24015-15
TO [APPELLANT] AND WHEN HE FAILED TO FILE THE
ORIGINAL SEARCH WARRANTS WITH THE COURT?
DID [APPELLANT] SUFFER PREJUDICE AS A RESULT OF
DETECTIVE A[L]MONTE’S VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BECAUSE [APPELLANT] FILED A
PRETRIAL SUPPRESSION MOTION AND PREPARED FOR
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BELIEVING THAT THE
SEARCH OF HIS HOME WAS WITHOUT A WARRANT, WHEN
THE COMMONWEALTH SOUGHT TO PROVE THAT THE
ENTRY WAS LEGAL BASED ON AN ALLEGEDLY VALIDLY
ISSUED SEARCH WARRANT, A COPY OF WHICH WAS
NEVER PROVIDED TO [APPELLANT], AND THE ORIGINAL
OF WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO [APPELLANT]
BECAUSE DETECTIVE A[L]MONTE NEVER FILED THE
WARRANTS WITH THE COURT?
(Appellant’s Brief at 1-2).
In his issues combined, Appellant argues the police violated
Pa.R.Crim.P. 208 when they failed, prior to the suppression hearing, to
provide Appellant with accurate copies of the search warrants and
inventories for the searches of Appellant’s residence. Appellant contends
that after the police completed the searches of his residence and car, they
gave Appellant an inaccurate copy of the warrant corresponding to the initial
8:33 a.m. search of the residence. Appellant avers this copy indicated the
warrant was signed at 11:21 a.m. and the search was conducted at 8:33
a.m. Appellant claims the trial court unjustifiably found the discrepancy
arose because the issuing court filled out both the original warrant and the
copy by hand rather than use copy equipment. Appellant asserts the
misinformation in the copy led him to believe the initial search of his
residence was conducted without a warrant, and he prepared his motion to
-5-
J-S24015-15
suppress accordingly. Appellant submits he did not receive an accurate copy
of the first warrant, which indicated the court approved the warrant at 8:33
a.m. in support of the 8:33 a.m. search, until the suppression hearing.
Appellant contends, with respect to the second search of his residence, that
the inventory list for the actual warrant differed from the inventory list
attached to Appellant’s copy of that warrant.
Appellant further argues Detective Almonte mistakenly failed to file the
original warrants and inventories with the court until the detective testified
at the suppression hearing. Appellant maintains the detective’s failure to file
the warrants and inventories in a timely manner violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 209
and 210 and deprived Appellant of an opportunity to inspect the original
documents before the suppression hearing. Appellant submits compliance
with Rules 209 and 210 is important not only to secure the rights of the
accused but also those rights of innocent third parties who have an interest
in the legality of the government’s search of a property.
Appellant argues the multiple violations of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure in this case caused him substantial prejudice by forcing him to
rely on inaccurate information going into the suppression hearing. Appellant
claims he was prepared to argue whether the initial search of the residence
was justified without a warrant, which is a different challenge than whether
the warrant-based search was proper. Appellant concludes the court should
have suppressed the firearms recovered under the warrants. We disagree.
-6-
J-S24015-15
We review the denial of a suppression motion subject to the following
principles:
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial
court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to
determining whether the factual findings are supported by
the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from
those facts are correct.
[W]e may consider only the evidence of the
prosecution and so much of the evidence for the
defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the
context of the record as a whole. Where the record
supports the findings of the suppression court, we
are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the
court erred in reaching its legal conclusions based
upon the facts.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14, 26-27 (Pa.Super. 2008) (en
banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 208 provides as follows:
§ 208. Copy of Warrant; Receipt for Seized Property
(A) A law enforcement officer, upon taking property
pursuant to a search warrant, shall leave with the person
from whom or from whose premises the property was
taken a copy of the warrant and affidavit(s) in support
thereof, and a receipt for the property seized. A copy of
the warrant and affidavit(s) must be left whether or not
any property is seized.
(B) If no one is present on the premises when the
warrant is executed, the officer shall leave the documents
specified in paragraph (A) at a conspicuous location in the
said premises. A copy of the warrant and affidavit(s) must
be left whether or not any property is seized.
(C) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (A)
and (B), the officer shall not leave a copy of an affidavit
that has been sealed pursuant to Rule 211.
-7-
J-S24015-15
Pa.R.Crim.P. 208. Rule 209 also governs procedure following execution of a
search warrant and states:
§ 209. Return with Inventory
(A) An inventory of items seized shall be made by the
law enforcement officer serving a search warrant. The
inventory shall be made in the presence of the person from
whose possession or premises the property was taken,
when feasible, or otherwise in the presence of at least one
witness. The officer shall sign a statement on the
inventory that it is a true and correct listing of all items
seized, and that the signer is subject to the penalties and
provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904(b)—Unsworn Falsification
To Authorities. The inventory shall be returned to and filed
with the issuing authority.
(B) The judicial officer to whom the return was made
shall, upon request, cause a copy of the inventory to be
delivered to the applicant for the warrant and to the
person from whom, or from whose premises, the property
was taken.
(C) When the search warrant affidavit(s) is sealed
pursuant to Rule 211, the return shall be made to the
justice or judge who issued the warrant.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 209.5 Rule 210 states as follows regarding the filing of a
returned search warrant:
§ 210. Return of Papers to Clerk
The judicial officer to whom the warrant was returned shall
file the search warrant, all supporting affidavits, and the
____________________________________________
5
This text represents the version of Rule 209 in effect when the police
executed the search warrants and the court held the suppression hearing.
Subsequent amendments to Rule 209 took effect on January 1, 2014.
-8-
J-S24015-15
inventory with the clerk of the court of common pleas of
the judicial district in which the property was seized.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 210.
Exclusion or suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for
every violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning searches and
seizures. Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 490 A.2d 421 (1985).
A technical failure to comply with a rule will not automatically result in the
exclusion of evidence seized. Commonwealth v. Gentile, 632 A.2d 573(Pa.Super. 1993). “It is only where the violation also implicates
fundamental, constitutional concerns, is conducted in bad-faith or has
substantially prejudiced the defendant that exclusion may be an appropriate
remedy.” Mason, supra at 406-407, 490 A.2d at 426 (emphasis in
original). See also Commonwealth v. Musi, 486 Pa. 102, 404 A.2d 378(1979) (stating officer’s failure to serve defendant with copy of warrant
pursuant to Rule 208 did not require suppression of evidence seized during
search); Commonwealth v. Graham, 482 A.2d 1277 (Pa.Super. 1984)
(holding officer’s failure to comply fully with Rule 209 did not require
suppression of evidence seized pursuant to warrant); Commonwealth v.
Ryan, 407 A.2d 1345 (Pa.Super. 1979) (holding issuing court’s failure to
forward warrants to clerk of courts in compliance with Rule 210 was
administrative error and did not require suppression of evidence seized).
Additionally:
[N]either the [trial] court nor the Superior Court has the
-9-
J-S24015-15
power to fashion a rule that requires the exclusion of
evidence because of a violation of a Rule of Criminal
Procedure. The general supervisory and administrative
authority over all the courts is vested solely in the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and if such a rule is to be
promulgated or the present rule amended it is within the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Mason, supra at 402, 490 A.2d at 423-24.
Instantly, Appellant told the officers, who initially arrived at his
residence, about the presence of firearms in the home. Detective Almonte
subsequently confirmed Appellant had a prior manslaughter conviction.
Detectives Almonte and Mriss arrived at Appellant’s residence on the
morning of March 22, 2013, and explained the purpose of their investigation.
The detectives informed Appellant they were securing a search warrant to
search for firearms in Appellant’s home. The magisterial district court issued
the first warrant on March 22, 2013, at 8:33 a.m. The police immediately
executed the warrant and recovered several firearms. Based on Detective
Mriss’ observation of a bag of cocaine during the search, the police secured a
second warrant for drugs at 11:21 a.m. that same day.
Detective Almonte gave Appellant a copy of the second warrant no
later than the following day. The copy indicated the warrant was issued at
11:21 a.m. Appellant did not immediately receive a copy of the first
warrant, and the inventory attached to his copy of the second warrant
indicated a search time of 8:33 a.m., which corresponded to the first search.
Nevertheless, the inventory listed all items recovered from both searches of
- 10 -
J-S24015-15
Appellant’s residence. Appellant’s copy of the affidavit of probable cause for
the second search also referenced the first search of Appellant’s residence
and the firearms recovered during that search. Furthermore, prior to the
first search, the police informed Appellant they were obtaining a search
warrant for firearms in Appellant’s residence. Therefore, shortly after the
police completed both residential searches, Appellant knew or had reason to
know the purpose of the searches and that they were warrant-based. As
early as the day after the searches were executed, Appellant had a complete
and accurate list of all evidence seized. Appellant ultimately had the
opportunity to review the original first and second warrants at the
suppression hearing, and defense counsel cross-examined Detective Almonte
on the content of both warrants. Suppression of the evidence was not an
appropriate remedy for Detective Almonte’s alleged technical failure to
comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 208, which implicated no fundamental
constitutional concerns or substantial prejudice to Appellant. See id.; Musi,
supra.With respect to the purported violations of Rules 209 and 210, the
versions of these rules in effect at the time of the suppression hearing
contained no language regarding time limits for filing original warrants with
the court or clerk of courts. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 209; Pa.R.Crim.P. 210.
Additionally, in light of Appellant’s notice, prior to the suppression hearing,
of the warrant-based searches of his residence and the evidence seized,
- 11 -
J-S24015-15
Appellant incurred no prejudice from Detective Almonte’s inadvertent delay
in filing the original warrants. See Mason, supra; Graham, supra; Ryan,
supra. Appellant had the information he needed to argue his suppression
motion. Moreover, we have no authority to dictate a rule that requires
exclusion of evidence for a violation of a Rule of Criminal Procedure as
alleged. See Mason, supra. Based on the foregoing, we see no reason to
disturb the trial court’s decision to deny Appellant’s motion to suppress on
the grounds stated. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/12/2015
- 12 -