Commonwealth v. Moser
Decision Date | 19 September 2022 |
Docket Number | 426 MDA 2022 |
Citation | 283 A.3d 850 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Obadiah MOSER, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Nicole J. Spring, Public Defender, Williamsport, for appellant.
Ryan C. Gardner, District Attorney, Williamsport, for Commonwealth. appellee.
Obadiah Moser appeals from the judgment of sentence of 80 to 160 years of incarceration entered following his conviction of numerous sexual offenses against a minor victim, R.H. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the discretionary aspects of his sentence. We affirm.
On November 11, 2020, police charged Moser based on R.H.’s report that when R.H. was ages 12 to 14, Moser sexually abused him eleven times. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial on October 20 and 21, 2021. During trial, Moser orally moved to suppress two deleted "Notes" recovered from his cellular phone.1 The trial court recessed, and a different judge heard the motion.
The evidence relevant to the suppression issue is as follows. Police discovered the Notes while executing two search warrants. In the first search, police seized electronics from Moser's house, including an iPhone. In the second, Pennsylvania State Police digital forensic examiner Stefan Gerneth seized digital information from the iPhone, including the Notes at issue. Both Notes were created during the time of the reported abuse, and both had been deleted by the time they were seized.2
The affidavit of probable cause in the second search warrant included the following information about Moser's use of technology:
Search warrant, 11/24/20, at 2–3.
The second search warrant authorized a search of, inter alia , "[a]ll the data within" Moser's iPhone. Id. at Attachment A. The items to be searched for and seized were:
At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth called Mr. Gerneth, who testified as an expert in computer forensics. He explained the function of the Notes application: N.T., Suppression, 10/20/21, at 11–12. He explained why he looked in the Notes folder from the data extraction in this case:
Very commonly in our data extractions we will find messages or messages to other people that are written out within the Notes app, they just were not sent. It's similar to writing a letter you just don't put in the post office. A lot of times people save messages in the notes or create messages or write out their thoughts of things they want to tell people and they just haven't done that. It's just in the notes, they just use it as like a notebook and write everything down to -- to maybe send it out in the future.
Moser argued that the second search warrant did not authorize the seizure of the Notes because the Notes were not "messages." Alternatively, Moser reasoned that if the warrant permitted police to seize the Notes, then it was overbroad because there was no probable cause to seize the Notes.
The Commonwealth responded that under a common-sense reading, the warrant authorized police to seize the Notes because a "message" can mean a "note or memo," including an unsent draft. Additionally, the Commonwealth submitted that the warrant was not overbroad because the police could seize only items that detailed Moser's relationship with R.H.
The suppression court denied Moser's motion to suppress. The court first concluded that the search did not exceed the scope of the second search warrant because Moser's deleted Notes were "messages" or "conversations":
Suppression Court Opinion, 10/27/21, at 2.4 The court also concluded that Moser's overbreadth challenge failed due to the warrant's limiting language:
The court cannot find in this case that the warrant is overbroad particularly because of the language set forth in the warrant that qualifies or conditions it. Specifically, the items to be seized include all items referenced that establish or provide details regarding the nature of the relationship between [Moser and R.H.]
Id. at 3–4. Therefore, the suppression court denied Moser's motion to suppress the two Notes.
The trial resumed, and the Commonwealth presented the Notes as evidence. The trial court then found Moser guilty of 48 offenses. On February 17, 2022, the court sentenced Moser to an aggregate term of 80 to 160 years of incarceration, followed by three years of probation.5
Moser timely appealed.6 Moser and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
Moser raises two issues for our review:
Moser's Brief at 7 (capitalization omitted).7
Moser's first issue mirrors his argument before the suppression court. We follow these well-settled principles:
our standard of review for the denial of a suppression motion is de novo and is limited to determining whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Our scope of review is to consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the suppression record as a whole. When the sole issue on appeal relates to a suppression ruling, our review includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes from consideration evidence elicited at trial.
Commonwealth v. Green , ––– Pa. –––––, 265 A.3d 541, 550–51 (2021) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Moser first contends that the Notes were outside the scope of what police could search for and seize under the language of the second search warrant.
Both the federal and Pennsylvania constitutions protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring search warrants. U.S. Const. amend. IV ; Pa. Const. Art. I, § 8. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to be issued "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." Commonwealth v. Turpin , 654 Pa. 619, 216 A.3d 1055, 1063–64 (2019) (quoting Maryland v. Garrison , 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987) ). Similarly, the Pennsylvania Constitution requires that a search warrant describe things to be seized "as nearly as may be" to prevent general, exploratory searches and "the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Burrell
...of the search. For example, police could seize a kitchen knife during a warranted search for "one pocket knife." Commonwealth v. Moser, 283 A.3d 850, 857 (Pa.Super. 2022) (internal citations and some quotation marks omitted). Additionally, Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 governs the authe......
-
Commonwealth v. Lomax
... ... sole claim on appeal challenges the discretionary aspects of ... her sentence. As such, this Court's jurisdiction is ... limited because challenges to the discretionary aspects of a ... sentence are not appealable as of right. Commonwealth v ... Moser, 283 A.3d 850, 858 (Pa. Super. 2022). Instead, to ... invoke our jurisdiction, with respect to this claim, ... Appellant needed to: (1) file a timely notice of appeal; (2) ... properly preserve the issue at sentencing or ... in a motion to reconsider and modify the sentence; ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Huffman
...court's opinion. Accordingly, Appellant waived his claim, and we cannot address the merits of the issue. See Commonwealth v. Moser, 283 A.3d 850, 858 (Pa. Super. 2022) ("[Moser] has failed to preserve his challenge by objecting at sentencing or by filing a motion to reconsider and modify hi......
-
Commonwealth v. Hall
...1002 (Pa. Super. 2014)). The overbreadth doctrine "applies equally to a search of digital space as it does for a physical space." Moser, 283 A.3d at 858 (quoting Green, A.3d at 553-54). An otherwise overbroad warrant may be cured by "self-limiting language" in the affidavit of probable caus......