Commonwealth v. Young
Citation | 287 A.3d 907 |
Decision Date | 23 December 2022 |
Docket Number | 2088 MDA 2018, No. 2089 MDA 2018 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Brendan Patrick YOUNG Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Daniel Casey |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Hugh J. Burns Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Joseph E. McGettigan III, Berwyn, for appellee.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has appealed from the order that, inter alia , granted the motion to suppress evidence obtained from the cellular phones of defendants Brendan Patrick Young and Daniel Casey (collectively "Appellees"). We affirm.
The suppression court offered the following summary of the facts that gave rise to the charges pending in these cases:
Suppression Court Opinion, 11/21/18, at 5-7 (cleaned up).
Police obtained the video files taken inside the residence through a warrant issued on February 8, 2017. That warrant sought the video data created from cameras inside the Beta Theta Pi fraternity house, files which were stored on devices already within the possession of the police. The description of items to be searched was specifically limited on the face of the warrant to recordings of "the events of the night of 2/2/2017 through the morning of 2/3/2017." N.T. Pre-trial Motions, 10/22/18, at 26-28, Exhibit C-11 ("video warrant"). The video warrant also on its face indicated that Detective Scicchitano's three-page affidavit of probable cause was attached thereto. Id .
The police obtained the text messages discussed above from Mr. Young's phone by a warrant issued on March 1, 2017 ("Young warrant"). The Young warrant identified the "items to be searched for and seized" as follows:
A cellular phone belonging to Brendan Young to include all of the phone's passwords and/or encryption codes; all data stored electronically, digitally or by any other method, which is contained and stored with this cellular phone associated with Brendan Young's phone. This data includes, but [is] not limited to, all sent/received text/SMS messaging and MMS messaging, pictures/images and/o videos and all call data logs for incoming/outgoing/dialed and missed phone calls stored within the cellular phone and micro SD memory device storage within said phone; all emails sent/received; all social media messaging; all internet searches.
Response to Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Young), 10/16/18, at Appendix A (Young warrant). Unlike the video warrant, there was no time or date range provided for any of the materials identified in the Young warrant. Also in contrast with the video warrant, the box next to the statement was not checked, and the number of pages for the affidavit was not supplied. Id . Instead, the warrant indicated below the magistrate's authorization that the affidavits of probable cause were sealed for sixty days. Id . The warrant for the search of Mr. Casey's phone ("Casey warrant") is identical in all material respects, and similarly produced evidence offered by the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearings.1 See Response to Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Casey), 10/16/18, at Appendix A.
Thereafter, Appellees were ultimately charged with multiple counts of recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), hazing, alcohol-related violations, and conspiracy.2 Mr. Young filed an omnibus pre-trial motion which included a motion to suppress cell phone evidence based upon the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution on multiple bases. Of relevance to this appeal, Mr. Young asserted that the warrant permitting the search of his phone lacked particularity and was instead an invalid "general warrant that authorize[d] ‘a general exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings.’ " Omnibus Pretrial Motions (Young), 8/16/18, at ¶ 26(M) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) ). In the accompanying brief, Mr. Young expressly included an unconstitutional overbreadth argument in support of suppression. See Brief in Support of Omnibus Pretrial Motions, 8/16/18, at 23-24.
The Commonwealth filed a brief in opposition to the suppression of the evidence obtained from Mr. Young's phone. Therein, the Commonwealth advocated that the Young warrant contained sufficient particularity, and also provided extensive argument that the warrant was not overbroad. See Response to Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (Young), 10/16/18, at 15-20.
Mr. Casey, in his omnibus pretrial motions, sought suppression of the contents of his phone on the basis that compelling him to provide his passcode violated his Fifth Amendment rights and exceeded the scope of the warrant. See Omnibus Pretrial Motion (Casey), at ¶¶ 49-60. While his motion did not include an overbreadth challenge to the Casey warrant, he did expressly request therein to join the pre-trial motions of the other related defendants.3 Id . at ¶¶ 101-102.
The suppression court scheduled a joint hearing on the pretrial motions of Appellees, and others charged in connection with Mr. Piazza's death, to take place beginning on October 22, 2018. At the outset of the hearing, the court asked the Commonwealth whether it objected to the defendants’ requests to join each other's motions. See N.T. Pre-trial Motions, 10/22/18, at 7. The Commonwealth did not generally object, expressing its anticipation that the Court's rulings would be applied consistently to all defendants and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. McCall
... ... record. We, however, are not bound by a suppression ... court's conclusions of law; rather, when reviewing ... questions of law, our standard of review is de novo ... and our scope of review is plenary ... Commonwealth v. Young , 287 A.3d 907, 915-16 ... (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up) ... Appellant ... asserts that his rights pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to ... the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the ... Pennsylvania Constitution were violated because "the ... ...
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson
-
Commonwealth v. Hall
... ... authorizes a search in terms so ambiguous as to allow the ... executing officers to pick and choose among an ... individual's possessions to find which items to seize ... This will result in the general 'rummaging' banned by ... the Fourth Amendment." Commonwealth v. Young , ... 287 A.3d 907, 920 (Pa. Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth ... v. Orie , 88 A.3d 983, 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 , 265 ... A.3d at ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Sukhadia
... ... chats between the suspect and "Bob Marie". The ... R/Det. found the chat string and confirmed that on 9/2/14 at ... approximately 2245 hrs. Bob Marie told Sukhadia that she was ... 15 years old. Sukhadia at first, said she was too young, but ... then he asked, "I will, r u a virgin haha", then ... they continued with Sukhadia asking about having sex and when ... they could meet. When the R/Det. observed these messages[, ... the affiant] stopped the exam and on 10/20/14 [the affiant] ... instructed ... ...