J-S30025-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

NATHANIAL RAY PRICE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1734 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered October 15, 2019

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

No(s): CP-32-CR-0001267-2016

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

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: JANUARY 27, 2023

This case returns to us following remand from the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court vacated our decision that reversed the 

order granting in part Nathanial Ray Price’s motion to suppress and remanded 

for us to consider the Commonwealth’s claim that the affidavit accompanying 

the warrant application established probable cause. See Commonwealth v. 

Price, 284 A.3d 165, 174 (Pa. 2022). We affirm. 

Price was arrested and charged in October 2016 in connection with a 

double homicide. State police applied for a warrant for “[a]ny and all phone 

records for phone number/s 724-762-3803[.]” Application for Search Warrant 

and Authorization, dated 10/28/16. The affidavit of probable cause for the 

search warrant stated in its entirety:

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S30025-20

- 2 -

Your affiant is Cpl John FISANICH. I am currently employed 

by the PA State Police as Supervisor in the Troop “A” 

Criminal Investigations Unit. I was so employed when this 

investigation was conducted.

On 10/27/16 at approximately 0040 hours, the PA State 

Police Patrol Unit was dispatched to a reported disturbance 

at 903 Hillside Drive in Cherry Hill Twp., Indiana County. 

Upon arrival, Patrol Troopers immediately saw a male lying 

in the downstairs area. He was clearly deceased. Upon 

clearing the residence for any further threats or suspect/s, 

Troopers found a female lying in an upstairs bedroom. She 

was also clearly deceased. The scene was secured and a 

supervisor and Criminal Investigators were called to the 

scene, as per PSP regulations.

As the investigation progressed through the day, several 

suspects were identified. One suspect is identified as 

Nathanial Ray PRICE w/n/m DOB 06/21/98. Investigators 

learned his phone number, and he was later taken into 

custody. The phone number listed on this Search Warrant 

Application is 724-762-3803 and is the number that is 

associated to Nathanial PRICE.

Based on my training and experience, I believe that there is 

valuable information regarding the act of Criminal Homicide 

to be gleaned from the cellular phone records associated 

with the aforementioned number. I ask that this search be 

granted to further this investigation.

Id. at 2 (Affidavit of Probable Cause). The court granted the warrant.

Price filed a motion to suppress various items of evidence, which the 

trial court granted in part and denied in part. Relevant here, Price moved to 

suppress evidence obtained from the above warrant. Price argued that “[t]he 

affidavit fails to state probable cause.” Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief, filed 

9/1/17, at ¶ 34.

The court granted Price’s motion. It stated that the phrases 

“investigators learned his phone number” and “724-762-3803 . . . is the 
J-S30025-20

- 3 -

number that is associated with Nathanial PRICE” did not explain how the 

investigators determined that the phone number was associated with Price’s 

cell phone. The court found that the affidavit “‘did not provide the issuing 

authority with a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed’” to 

search the phone records of the listed number. Opinion and Order of Court, 

filed 10/15/19, at 29-30 (quoting Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532 

(Pa. 2001)). The court noted that while it was the same court that had initially 

granted the search warrant, it concluded that “it is appropriate to review its 

prior decision in light of the Suppression Motion filed, and render the decision 

required by Pennsylvania jurisprudence.” Id. at 29 n.5.

The Commonwealth appealed and this Court reversed. Our Supreme 

Court allowed an appeal and vacated our order and remanded for this Court 

to address the Commonwealth’s claim that probable cause existed. The Court 

also concluded that the Commonwealth waived its inevitable discovery issue 

by failing to include it in its Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b)(4)(vii).

The Commonwealth maintains that the affidavit of probable cause 

explained that two people were murdered, and during the investigation of 

these murders, police identified Price as a suspect and “learned his [cellular] 

phone number.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 15 (alteration in original). It argues 

that “[t]o the extent it was not implicit that they learned his number simply 

by asking him or his accomplices, the far more significant inference was that, 

because [Price] acted with other suspects, he could have used the phone to 
J-S30025-20

- 4 -

communicate with them, possibly to plan the crime.” Id. at 15-16. This 

inference, “was sufficient, under the liberal standard governing warranted 

searches, for probable cause.” Id. at 16.

On appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress, our review is

“limited to determining whether the record supported that court’s factual 

findings and whether the legal conclusions that the suppression court drew 

from those facts were correct.” Torres, 764 A.2d at 536-37. We consider only 

“the evidence presented by the defense and so much of the evidence for the 

prosecution which remained uncontradicted when read in the context of the 

record as a whole.” Id. at 537.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, 

Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protects against unreasonable 

searches and seizures. A search warrant must be supported by probable 

cause. Commonwealth v. Caple, 121 A.3d 511, 520 (Pa.Super. 2015). 

“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s 

knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are 

sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief 

that a search should be conducted.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 

649, 655 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted). When considering whether probable 

cause exists, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth 

v. Johnson, 240 A.3d 575, 585 (Pa. 2020).

Here, the trial court determined that the warrant was not backed by 

probable cause. It agreed with Price that the warrant application failed to link 
J-S30025-20

- 5 -

the phone found on Price’s person with the phone number listed. Opinion and 

Order of Court at 29. It further stated that the warrant was “completely devoid 

of any foundation or explanation” of how investigators determined that the 

listed phone number matched that of Price’s cell phone. Id. We discern no 

error by the trial court. 

The affidavit of probable cause provides no information to warrant a 

person of reasonable caution in the belief that a search should be conducted.

Jones, 988 A.2d at 655. Nothing within the four corners of the warrant 

application offers any reason to believe that the records related to the phone

number would contain evidence related to the crimes under investigation. The 

affidavit does not allege that Price had his phone before, during, or after the 

commission of the murders. There is also no indication from the affidavit that 

Price provided his cell phone number to the investigators or any other way in 

which investigators allegedly learned his cell number. The affidavit essentially 

provides the conclusory assertions that Price is a suspect and his phone 

number is 724-762-3803. The warrant application was insufficient to establish 

probable cause. See Johnson, 240 A.3d at 587-88 (concluding lack of 

probable cause for a search warrant of defendant’s phone where the defendant 

was accused of possessing drugs and guns where the affidavit of probable 

cause failed to establish a nexus between the crime committed and the item 

to be searched). 

Order affirmed. 
J-S30025-20

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 1/27/2023