J-A11026-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

ANTHONY DION SHAW

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1400 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered August 5, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-40-CR-0003023-2018

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 01, 2020

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order granting 

Anthony Dion Shaw’s pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. We vacate and 

remand for further proceedings. 

The suppression court made the following findings of fact:

1. On May 3, 2018, Officer Sherise Wilson of the East Orange New 

Jersey Police Department was dispatched to [Shaw’s] apartment 

located at 74 South Munn Avenue, Apartment 11, East Orange, 

New Jersey.

2. Officer Wilson was dispatched to [Shaw’s] apartment to check 

on the well-being of [Shaw] because he had not reported for work 

for two days.

3. Officer Wilson arrived at the apartment complex where [Shaw]

resided and located Apartment 11 which was the unit occupied by 

[Shaw].

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11026-20

- 2 -

4. Although Officer Wilson knocked on the door several times, she 

received no response.

5. Officer Wilson did not hear or smell anything unusual and 

actually heard nothing while she was at the door to [Shaw’s]

apartment.

6. Several tenants of the apartment complex were questioned by 

Officer Wilson regarding [Shaw] however none of them knew him.

7. After unsuccessfully attempting to locate [Shaw] in his 

apartment, Officer Wilson made contact with the building 

superintendent.

8. During a discussion with the superintendent, Officer Wilson 

commented that she didn’t hear or smell anything unusual while 

she was outside [Shaw’s] apartment.

9. The superintendent advised Officer Wilson that [Shaw] was 

neither sickly nor elderly.

10. Officer Wilson told the superintendent that [Shaw] may be on 

vacation out of the country without cell phone service or may just 

want to be left alone.

11. Without encountering anything unusual or any type of 

emergency requiring that she provide immediate assistance to 

protect or preserve life or prevent serious injury, Officer Wilson 

had the superintendent unlock the door to [Shaw’s] apartment so 

she could enter.

12. After entering [Shaw’s] apartment with her sergeant, Officer 

Wilson observed blood on the floor and proceeded into a bedroom 

where she found [Shaw] lying on the floor.

13. [Shaw] stated that he had tried to kill himself.

14. Officer Wilson then walked through [Shaw’s] apartment and 

located three knives, a notebook containing a handwritten note 

and other items eventually seized by the East Orange Police 

Department.
J-A11026-20

- 3 -

15. After locating the notebook, Officer Wilson proceeded to read 

the handwritten note contained therein.[1]

16. Officer Wilson’s testimony was corroborated by the video 

recorded on her body camera.

17. Emergency personnel responded to the scene and began 

treating [Shaw] for a self-inflicted knife wound to his neck.

18. [Shaw] was then transported to Rutgers University Hospital 

and several items of evidence were taken from his apartment by 

the East Orange Police Department including three knives, the 

notebook containing a handwritten note, two blood swabs, a gold 

cell phone and [Shaw’s] New Jersey driver’s license.

19. Sometime after the suicide attempt, the Office of the Luzerne 

County District Attorney contacted Detective Michael McCusker of 

the East Orange Police Department regarding [Shaw] and his 

possible involvement in the death of the victim which occurred on 

or about May 1 or 2 of 2018.

20. [Shaw] had been in a relationship with the victim prior to her 

death and became a suspect in the homicide.

21. The Wilkes-Barre Township Police Department obtained a 

search warrant for [Shaw’s] 2003 Mercury Sable bearing New 

Jersey registration K3 8DZH from the Luzerne County Court of 

Common Pleas on May 4, 2018.

22. Detective McCusker then obtained a search warrant on May 5, 

2018 from the East Orange Municipal Court for the same vehicle 

using the Luzerne County warrant to establish probable cause.

23. This vehicle was transported to Luzerne County and searched 

on May 11, 2018.

24. During the search of [Shaw’s] 2003 Mercury Sable, the Office 

of the Luzerne County District Attorney and/or the Wilkes-Barre 

Township Police Department seized a Kmart receipt, Gerber knife 

packaging, two swabs of suspected blood and a fingerprint.

25. Also on May 4, 2018, the Wilkes-Barre Township Police 

Department obtained a search warrant from the Luzerne County 

____________________________________________

1 The handwritten note contained an apology by Shaw to the family of Cindy 

Lou Ashton (“the victim”). Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, 10/11/19 at 2.
J-A11026-20

- 4 -

Court of Common Pleas for [Shaw’s] apartment located at 74 

South Munn Avenue in East Orange, New Jersey.

26. Detective McCusker obtained a search warrant from the East 

Orange Municipal Court for [Shaw’s] apartment on May 5, 2018 

using the Luzerne County warrant to establish probable cause.

27. During the search of [Shaw’s] apartment on May 5, 2018, the 

Office of the Luzerne County District Attorney and/or the WilkesBarre Township Police Department seized twenty-three items 

listed on the Wilkes-Barre Township Police property record and 

attached hereto as Court Attachment “A”.

28. A third search warrant was obtained by the Wilkes-Barre 

Township Police Department on May 4, 2018 from the Luzerne 

County Court of Common Pleas for an evidence locker located at 

the East Orange Police Department.

29. Detective McCusker then obtained a search warrant from the 

East Orange Municipal Court for the items contained in the 

evidence locker on May 5, 2018 using the Luzerne County warrant 

to establish probable cause.

30. During the search of the evidence locker, the Office of the 

Luzerne County District Attorney and/or the Wilkes-Barre

Township Police Department obtained the three knives, the 

notebook containing a handwritten note and a gold cell phone.

31. On May 5, 2018 law enforcement officers from the Office of 

the Luzerne County District Attorney and/or Wilkes-Barre 

Township Police Department proceeded to the Rutgers University 

Hospital to interview [Shaw].

32. Prior to initiating any questioning, [Shaw] was properly 

provided with, and waived, his Constitutional right to remain silent 

pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.

[2]

33. During the interview, [Shaw] was confronted with evidence 

obtained by the East Orange Police Department while in [Shaw’s]

apartment during the welfare check on May 3, 2018 such as the 

handwritten note from the notebook.

34. On May 10, 2018, the Office of the Luzerne County District 

Attorney and/or the Wilkes-Barre Township Police Department 

____________________________________________

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
J-A11026-20

- 5 -

obtained a search warrant from the Luzerne County Court of 

Common Pleas to take a buccal swab from [Shaw].

35. Detective Robert O’Neal of the Essex County Prosecutor’s 

Office obtained a search warrant from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey on May 10, 2018 for the buccal swab using the Luzerne 

County warrant to establish probable cause.

36. On May 11, 2018 a buccal swab was taken from [Shaw] while 

a patient at Rutgers University Hospital by the Office of the 

Luzerne County District Attorney and/or Wilkes-Barre Township 

Police Department.

37. The affidavits of probable cause for all four search warrants 

obtained from the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas contain 

the following language:

On May 4, 2018, Affiants learned that on the previous day 

(May 3, 2018) law enforcement officers from the East 

Orange, NJ Police Department responded to a welfare check 

at 74 South Munn Avenue, Apt 1I East Orange, NJ 07018; 

believed to be the residence of Anthony D. Shaw. SHAW is 

believed to have attempted suicide within the Apartment 

and was transported for medical treatment.

On May 4, 2018, Affiants from the Luzerne County District 

Attorney’s Office and Wilkes-Barre Township Police 

Department learned of SHAW’s location and his apparent 

suicide attempt that occurred on May , [sic] 2018. Affiants 

also learned that multiple items were seized by the East 

Orange Police Department including one (1) large straight 

knife with red handle, two (2) folding knives (one folding 

knife has a black/grey handle and one folding knife has a 

black handle), one (1) handwritten note in a burgundy 

colored one subject oxford notebook, and one (1) gold in 

color Samsung Note 5 cellular phone. These items were 

seized as part of the suicide investigation and logged into 

evidence at the East Orange Police Department (Essex 

County, NJ) located at 15 South Munn Avenue, East Orange, 

NJ 07018.

On May 4, 2018, Affiants from the Luzerne County District 

Attorney’s Office and Wilkes-Barre Township Police 

Department learned that New Jersey authorities located 

SHAW’s Mercury Sable vehicle. The vehicle is a silver in color 
J-A11026-20

- 6 -

Mercury Sable sedan with sunroof, NJ registration K38DZH 

and VIN #IIVIEFM55S436617739.

38. The search warrants obtained from the Luzerne County Court 

of Common Pleas were attached as exhibits to the search warrants 

applied for and obtained in Essex County, New Jersey.

39. On May 22, 2018, [Shaw] was charged with one count of 

criminal homicide.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 8/5/19, at 1-6 (unpaginated).

Significantly, the investigating officer from Luzerne County, Detective 

Noone, whom the suppression court found credible,3testified as follows:

[Commonwealth]: The specific items of evidence that you 

gathered that were important to this investigation?

The Court: Outside of the scope of what was in the probable cause 

affidavits for all the warrants.

[Noone]: Basically we were advised that [victim’s] boyfriend or 

ex-boyfriend or individual that was present with her on the 1st of 

May, the day prior to her being discovered deceased, we were 

given a name of Anthony Shaw. Further Investigation gives us an 

address of Anthony Shaw to be 74 South Munn Ave [sic] in East 

Orange, New Jersey. Our investigation took us to that apartment 

complex where we observed that there was video cameras 

amongst the inside and outside of that building.

After speaking to the superintendent there, we were able to view 

those cameras outside/inside to see what the individual was 

wearing based on information that we received, what he may have 

been carrying, any evidence regarding the investigation of the 

death of the victim. After seeing that information or that video, 

the defendant does return home in his vehicle into his apartment 

building, walking up the stairs towards his apartment building.

[Commonwealth]: The vehicle being the 2003 Mercury Sable?

[Noone]: Correct.

____________________________________________

3 See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 6, ¶40.
J-A11026-20

- 7 -

[Commonwealth]: Was there also video obtained in the area of 

the victim’s apartment?

[Noone]: Yes.

[Commonwealth]: Describe what type of video was obtained in 

that area?

[Noone]: Specifically in the video that captured the front of 134 

Nicholson Street, Wilkes-Barre Township was a neighbor’s front 

porch video camera which captured the defendant leaving in his 

said 2003 Mercury approximately 7:48 in the morning on the 2nd 

of May 2018. That would be leaving the victim’s residence. 

[Commonwealth]: Were you also able to obtain any records from 

local businesses putting [Shaw] in the area of Wilkes-Barre or 

Wilkes-Barre Township around the time of [the victim’s] death? 

[Noone]: Yes. So the 1st of May 2018 [Shaw] went to Odyssey 

Fitness Center with Tracy McCoy which would be the uncle of the 

deceased victim Ashton. They went to the Odyssey Fitness Center 

where he signed in, paid I believe with a credit card, did some 

type of physical workout there for a little while and then later on 

he dropped Mr. McCoy off back at the residence 134 which he lives 

upstairs. He left there and ultimately went to see a movie at 

Movies 14 downtown Wilkes-Barre on the 1st of May 2018. 

[Commonwealth]: Did you also -- did you obtain any cell phone 

information of the parties involved after the fact? 

[Noone]: Yes, there was a cell phone dump of the phone of the 

victim and [Shaw].

[Commonwealth]: Would that show any contact between the two 

of them? 

[Noone]: Yeah, there was -- based on the numbers and the 

information that was known to us, [Shaw] and the victim 

communicated with one another via text message which we were 

able to read. 

[Commonwealth]: Lastly, did [Shaw] eventually give any 

statements to investigators that may have placed him in the area 

at the time or around the time of [the victim’s] death?

[Noone]: Yeah, the 5th of May 2018 I interviewed [Shaw] at his 

bedside in East Orange, Rutgers, I believe, University Hospital. He 
J-A11026-20

- 8 -

was Mirandized. He was willing to speak to us. And he gave a 

statement of his recollection of events on the time that he spent 

from approximately noon on May 1st, 2018 until he left the prior 

morning at 7:48 approximately on the 2nd of May, the events. 

Which basically he stated that he was in Wilkes-Barre, he went to 

Odyssey Fitness Center. I believe he did state that he went to the 

movies earlier in the afternoon, if I’m correct, I could be jogging 

reports. But ultimately he arrives back at 7 p.m. to 134 Nicholson 

Street to the victim’s residence. When he arrives the aunt was 

there, she left. Him and the victim had a conversation regarding 

the relationship. He indicated to me that they resolved their 

differences with an agreement to be friends with benefits and 

ultimately they just laid around, never left the apartment, nobody 

came in, nobody left. He believed that approximately six in the 

morning on the 2nd of May that the victim gave him a kiss which 

he was going to leave for the day which the way he described she 

had a routine: She leaves approximately six in the morning, works 

out, showers, and then arrives for work and will work through five, 

six o’clock p.m., give or take.

[Commonwealth]: During the statement that he gave you which 

was after the warrants were issued, did he admit to operating the 

Mercury Sable to go back to New Jersey?

[Noone]: Yes. He actually gave me a route he took. To the best of 

my recollection, review of the reports, that he travelled 81, 380, 

80 back to New Jersey...

N.T. Hearing, 6/28/19, at 49-53.

In October 2018, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information against 

Shaw containing the lone charge of criminal homicide. Prior to trial, in 

December 2018, Shaw filed an omnibus pre-trial motion seeking to suppress 

all evidence police seized from Shaw’s apartment during both the initial

welfare search and the later search pursuant to the Pennsylvania/New Jersey 

warrants. Shaw also sought to suppress the items police found upon searching 

his vehicle, his statements to investigators while hospitalized in May 2018, 

and the DNA evidence officers’ collected from him at that time.
J-A11026-20

- 9 -

Following a suppression hearing, the court issued a briefing schedule

listing four specific issues it asked the parties to address, and encouraging the 

parties to raise any other issues they deemed relevant, and both parties filed 

briefs. In its brief, the Commonwealth argued, inter alia, that the court should 

not suppress the evidence at issue because the inevitable discovery doctrine

applied. The Commonwealth also filed a motion specifically requesting the 

opportunity to supplement the record with evidence regarding its inevitable 

discovery argument. 

The suppression court issued an order on August 5, 2019, granting the 

suppression motion, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law. The 

court found that the evidence at issue should be suppressed because Officer 

Wilson’s initial warrantless entry and search of Shaw’s apartment was 

unconstitutional and therefore all evidence emanating from that search should 

be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree pursuant to the exclusionary rule. 

The suppression court did not address the Commonwealth’s argument under 

the inevitable discovery doctrine or its bid to supplement the record.

The Commonwealth filed the instant timely appeal and court-ordered 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court once again

concluded that Officer Wilson’s initial warrantless search was unconstitutional 

and did not fall under New Jersey’s community-caretaking doctrine. Further, 

the court also rejected the Commonwealth’s contention that the court had

erred by declining to admit the evidence under the inevitable discovery 
J-A11026-20

- 10 -

doctrine and by denying the Commonwealth’s request to supplement the 

record regarding this claim. 

The Commonwealth raises the following issues for appellate review:

1. Whether the court erred when it ruled that the 

community caretaker doctrine did not justify entry into 

the home of [Shaw] who was found with his throat 

slashed, bleeding into a hamper, admitting to having 

attempted suicide. Did not consider whether the 

Commonwealth had demonstrated that the items seized 

from [Shaw], his residence and vehicle would have been 

inevitably discovered?

2. Whether the court erred when it did not consider whether 

the Commonwealth had demonstrated that the items 

seized from [Shaw], his residence and vehicle would 

have been inevitably discovered[?]

Commonwealth’s Br. at 6.

When we review “an appeal by the Commonwealth of a suppression 

order, we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses along 

with the Commonwealth’s evidence which remains uncontroverted.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 476 (Pa. 2010). We review the 

trial court’s factual findings to determine whether the record supports them; 

we review the court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id. Where supported by the 

record, “a suppression court’s findings of fact are binding on this Court.”

Commonwealth v. Coughlin, 199 A.3d 401, 404 (Pa.Super. 2018) (en banc) 

(citations omitted).

In its first issue, the Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred 

by determining that New Jersey’s community-caretaking doctrine did not 
J-A11026-20

- 11 -

excuse the officer’s warrantless entry and search of Shaw’s apartment. The 

Commonwealth emphasizes that Officer Wilson entered Shaw’s apartment for 

the sole purpose of checking on his welfare and did not have any knowledge 

that he was a suspect in the victim’s murder. The Commonwealth points out 

that Officer Wilson in fact saved Shaw’s life. Further, while the Commonwealth 

acknowledges the suppression court’s reliance on State v. Vargas, 63 A.3d 

175 (N.J. 2013), it asserts that the facts of the instant case are more similar 

to State v. Mordente, 133 A.3d 684 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016).

The suppression court in this case applied New Jersey law to this issue 

because it concluded that New Jersey has a greater interest in the outcome of 

this question than Pennsylvania does. See Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 716 

A.2d 1221, 1224 (Pa. 1998) (holding Pennsylvania’s choice-of-law interest 

analysis applies in criminal cases). As neither party here disputes the lower 

court’s application of New Jersey law to this issue, we assume, without 

deciding, that New Jersey law governs Shaw’s first issue. 

In Vargas, the New Jersey Supreme Court discussed New Jersey’s 

community-caretaking doctrine at length. There, police entered the 

defendant’s home to check on his welfare and found evidence of contraband 

in the process. The State argued that the warrantless entry was proper

pursuant to the community-caretaking doctrine, because the defendant’s 

landlord had had no contact with him for two weeks, his rent and bills were 

late, his mailbox was full, and his car was covered in dust and had flat tires.

63 A.3d at 178-179. 
J-A11026-20

- 12 -

The Vargas court was not convinced. It explained that New Jersey’s 

community-caretaking doctrine applies in strictly limited circumstances. It 

permits an officer to enter a home without a warrant only if the officer “has 

an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an emergency requires that 

[the officer] provide immediate assistance to protect or preserve life, or to 

prevent serious injury and there is a reasonable nexus between the 

emergency and the area or places to be searched.” Id. at 188 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). The Vargas court explained that the police 

lacked an objectively reasonable basis to believe that immediate entry was 

necessary due to an immediate risk to the safety of either Vargas or the 

community. Id. at 191. Rather, the court considered Vargas’s two-week 

absence to be “consistent with a person vacationing, traveling on business, or 

tending to a personal family matter.” Id.

Conversely, in Mordente, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey 

Superior Court concluded that the circumstances there were sufficient to 

invoke the community-caretaking doctrine. Mordente, 133 A.3d at 688.

There, the defendant had alerted police that his elderly mother was missing 

during a winter night. Id. at 687-688. The defendant was extremely worried 

and feared she might have fallen down some basement steps. The defendant 

allowed New Jersey officers to enter his home, and then left. Later, officers 

returned to the home and searched for the defendant’s mother, and found 

unrelated contraband. The appellate court concluded that the trial court 

properly refused to suppress the contraband, because there was sufficient,
J-A11026-20

- 13 -

objective evidence that an emergency required immediate assistance to 

protect human life. Id. at 688.

In this case, the suppression court found the instant facts more similar 

to those presented in Vargas than those in Mordente, and we agree. The 

only objective fact in favor of entry into Shaw’s apartment, that Officer Wilson 

knew, was that Shaw had not attended work in two days. Officer Wilson did 

not see, hear, or smell anything unusual at Shaw’s front door. Neither the 

building superintendent, nor anyone else, told Officer Wilson that Shaw was 

elderly or infirm, as occurred in Mordente. In fact, akin to the Vargas court’s 

considering the evidence there to be consistent with a person being away, 

Officer Wilson noted that Shaw could merely be on vacation or want to be left 

alone. Therefore, we conclude that the suppression court properly determined

that Officer Wilson’s warrantless entry into Shaw’s apartment did not pass 

muster under New Jersey’s community-caretaking exception. Thus, we hold 

that the Commonwealth’s first issue warrants no relief.

In its second claim, the Commonwealth argues that the suppression 

court erred by failing to apply the inevitable discovery doctrine to admit the 

evidence at issue. The Commonwealth contends that Luzerne County police

would have inevitably discovered the evidence seized from Shaw’s apartment 

and his car due to the information already in their possession before they 

learned of the New Jersey officers’ search. The Commonwealth points out that 

Shaw was a primary suspect in a homicide and surveillance video shows him 

leaving the scene of the crime in his vehicle shortly before the victim’s body 
J-A11026-20

- 14 -

was found, and arriving at his own apartment in New Jersey in that vehicle

thereafter. 

The Commonwealth adds that the victim’s uncle, Tracy McCoy, could 

place Shaw in the area of the victim’s apartment at the time of the homicide 

and represented that the victim and Shaw were involved in a romantic 

relationship that they were discussing ending. In addition, the Commonwealth 

notes that cell phone records revealed contact between Shaw and the victim 

and business records also likewise confirmed that Shaw had used a gym and 

movie theater near the victim’s apartment during the time in question. The 

Commonwealth maintains that all of this information, together, supplied the 

Luzerne County police with probable cause to obtain a warrant for Shaw’s 

apartment, and they would have done so, as he was their prime suspect. The 

Commonwealth argues that when police executed that warrant, they would 

have inevitably discovered the evidence that the New Jersey police obtained 

during their search. 

The Commonwealth argues that the suppression court thus erred by 

failing even to consider the inevitable discovery doctrine in its Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law. The Commonwealth further points out that the court 

failed to address its request to supplement the record regarding this claim. 

Thus, the Commonwealth urges this Court to remand this case to the 

suppression court to provide the Commonwealth with the opportunity to 

supplement the record and the suppression court with the chance to consider 
J-A11026-20

- 15 -

fully the application of this very fact-specific doctrine to the complex case at 

hand. 

Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and

Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution require governmental

searches of a home to be conducted pursuant to a warrant supported by 

probable cause, unless a warrant exception applies. See Commonwealth v. 

Newsome, 170 A.3d 1151, 1154 (Pa.Super. 2017). Searches that are 

conducted in violation of this rule are illegal and evidence so discovered is 

subject to suppression. See Commonwealth v. Carper, 172 A.3d 613, 618 

(Pa.Super. 2017).

One exception to the warrant requirement is the inevitable discovery 

doctrine, which excepts from exclusion evidence that police would have 

inevitably discovered by legal means. Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 

475, 489-90 (Pa. 2018). In order to invoke this doctrine, the prosecution has 

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that police would 

have inevitably discovered the otherwise excludable evidence, by lawful 

means. Id. at 490. “Police must demonstrate that the evidence would have 

been discovered absent the police misconduct, not simply that they somehow 

could have lawfully discovered it.” Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185, 

196 (Pa.Super. 2014) (emphasis removed).

Here, although the suppression court initially failed to address the 

Commonwealth’s inevitable discovery claim, it ultimately found that the facts 

known to Pennsylvania law enforcement at the relevant time were insufficient 
J-A11026-20

- 16 -

to invoke the doctrine.4 Suppression Ct. Op., 10/11/19, at 4-5 (unpaginated). 

The suppression court also properly noted that a court’s decision to disallow 

the opening of the record is subject to review under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Commonwealth v. Brown, 700 A.2d 1310, 1320 (Pa.Super. 

1997). Although the court did not initially address the Commonwealth’s 

request to supplement the record, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court opined 

that the Commonwealth had sufficient opportunity between the time when 

Shaw filed his suppression motion in December 2018 and the suppression 

hearing in June 2019, to present any relevant evidence. Id. at 5-6. Thus, the 

suppression court maintains that its failure to address the Commonwealth’s 

request to supplement the record and ultimate denial of such request did not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. Under the particular facts at issue here, we 

disagree. 

As discussed above, a claim regarding the inevitable discovery doctrine 

is rooted in a close factual analysis. This case has a complex and sprawling 

factual landscape – including two distinct law enforcement agencies in two 

states, potential DNA evidence, surveillance video featuring Shaw, potential 

testimony of the victim’s relative who observed Shaw and the victim interact 

near the time of the murder – that required a fully developed record. In these 

circumstances, the failure to grant, let alone address the Commonwealth’s 

____________________________________________

4 The trial court applied Pennsylvania law to this issue and due to our 

disposition we need not address whether this was the proper course. 
J-A11026-20

- 17 -

request to supplement the record prior to granting the suppression motion

seeking to exclude nearly all evidence at issue in this case, was error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the suppression court’s application of New 

Jersey’s community-caretaking exception. However, we reverse the denial of 

the Commonwealth’s request to supplement the record, vacate the 

suppression order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

Memorandum. 

Order vacated and remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/1/2020