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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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

- 2 -

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.,2the 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. 
J-S24015-15

- 3 -

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. 
J-S24015-15

- 4 -

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 (31⁄2) 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”),4requesting 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. 
J-S24015-15

- 5 -

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 
J-S24015-15

- 6 -

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. 
J-S24015-15

- 7 -

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.
J-S24015-15

- 8 -

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. 
J-S24015-15

- 9 -

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 
J-S24015-15

- 10 -

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 
J-S24015-15

- 11 -

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, 
J-S24015-15

- 12 -

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