Commonwealth v. Davis
| Decision Date | 23 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3193 EDA 2019,3193 EDA 2019 |
| Citation | 241 A.3d 1160 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Brandon Eugene DAVIS, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Nathan Criste, Public Defender, Doylestown, for appellant.
Christa S. Dunleavy, Public Defender, Doylestown, for appellant.
Matthew D. Weintraub, District Attorney, Doylestown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Jill M. Graziano, Assistant District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
Appellant, Brandon Eugene Davis, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County following his conviction by a jury on, inter alia , robbery, burglary, and conspiracy.1 After a careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant was arrested in connection with an armed home invasion occurring on August 21, 2017, at the home of Jonathan and Emily Nadav in Newtown Township, Bucks County.2 On October 11, 2018, Appellant filed a counseled omnibus pre-trial motion seeking to suppress the police's seizure of cell phone records, specifically the historical cell-site location records for Appellant's cell phone.3 See Appellant's Suppression Motion, filed 10/11/18, at 1-2.
Appellant admitted the Commonwealth obtained a court order requiring Appellant's cell phone wireless provider, T-Mobile/Metro PCS, to disclose and furnish the police with the cell-site location records. See id. However, Appellant contended the police's acquisition of his cell-site location records constituted a search for which a warrant supported by probable cause was required. See id. Accordingly, absent a warrant, Appellant averred the cell-site location records were improperly seized by the police and, thus, required exclusion under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See id.
On November 5, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a motion in opposition to Appellant's omnibus pre-trial suppression motion. Therein, the Commonwealth admitted that, on November 3, 2017, the Commonwealth secured a court order directing the wireless carrier to provide the requested cell phone records, including the historical cell-site location records for Appellant's cellular telephone, from August 1, 2017, to October 31, 2017.4 Commonwealth's Motion In Opposition, filed 11/5/18, at 1-2. The Commonwealth averred it sought this order on the basis there were "reasonable grounds to believe that the requested records were relevant and material to the on-going burglary investigation." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
The Commonwealth acknowledged that prior to Appellant's jury trial the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 22, 2018, in Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 2206, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018), in which the High Court held that the police's seizure of historical cell-site location records from wireless carriers constitutes a search for which a warrant supported by probable cause is generally required. Commonwealth's Motion In Opposition, filed 11/5/18, at 2. Accordingly, in the wake of Carpenter , on July 5, 2018, the police secured a search warrant for the historical cell-site location records with regard to Appellant's cell phone.5 Id.
The Commonwealth averred the warrant was supported by probable cause, and the warrant was served upon T-Mobile/Metro PC, which released to the police the same cell phone records which the Commonwealth previously secured via the court order. Id. The Commonwealth argued the seizure of the cell phone records via the execution of the search warrant purged the taint of any original illegality. Id. at 11. The Commonwealth reasoned that since the cell phone records would have been (and in fact were) ultimately discovered by lawful means the evidence should not be excluded pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine. Id. at 11-12.
On November 7, 2018, and December 19, 2018, the trial court held hearings on Appellant's suppression motion. Initially, Appellant's counsel requested permission to amend the suppression motion to include the argument that the search warrant secured by the Commonwealth after Carpenter was not supported by probable cause, and thus, the cell phone records were fruits of the poisonous tree. N.T., 11/7/18, 6. The assistant district attorney did not object to the amendment, and accordingly, the trial court permitted Appellant to amend his suppression motion. Id.
At the hearing, the defense offered no witnesses while the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Newtown Township Police Detective Chris Bush.6 Detective Bush relevantly testified he prepared the affidavit for the police to secure the records for Appellant's cellular telephone via a court order, and a trial court judge signed the order. Id. at 36-37. As a result, the police received Appellant's cell phone records, including the historical cell-site location records. Id. at 37.
Thereafter, the Commonwealth contacted Detective Bush and asked him to secure a search warrant for Appellant's cell phone records. Id. Accordingly, Detective Bush prepared an application and affidavit of probable cause for a search warrant. Id. at 38-39. Detective Bush served the search warrant upon the wireless carrier, which provided the detective with the exact same records that the carrier had provided in response to the previous court order. Id. at 39, 47-48.
On cross-examination, Detective Bush clarified the Commonwealth received the court order for Appellant's cell phone records on November 3, 2017, and he received the search warrant on July 5, 2018. Id. at 68.
On re-direct examination, Detective Bush testified his affidavit for the court order for Appellant's cell phone records and his affidavit of probable cause for the search warrant contained the same information with one exception. Id. at 73. Specifically, he removed from the affidavit of probable cause language pertaining to the police's reviewing of Daniels’ and Jones’ cell phone records, which revealed that, at the time of the home invasion, cell device activities were captured on cell phone towers near the Nadav home.7 Id. at 73-74.
Detective Bush explained that when he obtained the court order for Appellant's cell phone records the law did not require a search warrant; however, after the law changed, the Commonwealth asked him to secure a search warrant. Id. at 75.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Appellant's counsel argued that after the police seized Appellant's cell phone records via a court order the Commonwealth's subsequent seizure of those same records via a search warrant did not comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate under Carpenter . Id. at 88-89.
Appellant's counsel also argued that neither the affidavit for the court order nor the affidavit for the search warrant set forth sufficient grounds for probable cause. Id. at 89. Appellant's counsel admitted the affidavits referenced in detail the events occurring at the Nadav residence, as well as the evidence identifying Appellant's co-conspirators. Id. at 90. However, Appellant's counsel averred that, as to Appellant's connection to the case, the affidavits only referenced a cell phone number, later linked to Appellant, as having contact with a co-conspirator from 2:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. during the home invasion. Id. at 89-90. Counsel noted that, while both affidavits set forth Appellant's cell phone number, the documents did not mention Appellant by name or identify him in any other manner. Id. at 90.
At the conclusion of the hearing, by order entered on January 14, 2019, the suppression court denied Appellant's motion to suppress the cell phone records, including the historical cell-site location records for Appellant's cell phone. Specifically, the suppression court indicated the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Lewis
...see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 5772(b)(3) (requiring that an application for an order under that section include an affidavit of probable cause). In B. Davis, a panel of this Court held that the did not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining historical CSLI pursuant to an order f......
-
Commonwealth v. Ginnery
...748, 756 (Pa. Super. 2015). Commonwealth v. Davis, 241 A.3d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2020), relied on by the Commonwealth, is not to the contrary. In Davis, the requirements of inevitable discovery doctrine were satisfied because the police, after the change in law, in fact obtained the same record......
-
Commonwealth v. Ginnery
...748, 756 (Pa. Super. 2015). Commonwealth v. Davis, 241 A.3d 1160 (Pa. Super. 2020), relied on by the Commonwealth, is not to the contrary. In Davis, the requirements of inevitable discovery doctrine were satisfied because the police, after the change in law, in fact obtained the same record......
- Commonwealth v. Muhammad, No. 1455 MDA 2018