J-S18020-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RONALD LEE ARNDT 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1704 MDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 14, 2018

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

No(s): CP-36-CR-0003980-2017

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

Appellant Ronald Lee Arndt appeals from the judgment of sentence 

following a bench trial and convictions for possession with intent to deliver 

and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 On appeal, Appellant contends the 

trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the information in 

the search warrant was stale, uncorroborated, unreliable, and hearsay within 

hearsay. We affirm.

We set forth the following background, as taken from the suppression 

record.2 On June 11, 2017, Detective Joseph Grego applied for a warrant to 

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (32).

2 We recognize that our scope of review is limited to the record available to 

the suppression court. In re L.J., 79 A.3d 1073, 1085 (Pa. 2013). In this 
J-S18020-19

- 2 -

search Appellant’s home for “any assets, paraphernalia, or other materials 

related to the use or sales of” methamphetamine. Appl. for Search Warrant 

and Authorization, 6/11/17 (emphasis added) (unpaginated). In support of 

the application, Detective Grego averred the following in his affidavit of 

probable cause:

3. That on June 29th, 2015, the Elizabethtown Police Department 

forwarded a Drug Task Force information form from a named 

citizen (complainant #1) stating that “Phillip Bennett” who lives at 

303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA is dealing heroin and 

meth. The complainant stated he/she “watches a lot of in and out

traffic and has witnessed drug deals in front of his/her building”. 

The complainant labels “[Appellant]” as a suspect and the 

“landlord” of 303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA. 

Detective Kelly of the Lancaster County Drug Task force was 

initially assigned this complaint and is familiar with Phillip Bennett 

from an ongoing methamphetamine investigation including Jere 

Kenneth Gilgore[,] Jr.

4. That on July 28th, 2015, the Elizabethtown Police Department 

forwarded a Drug Task Force information form from a named 

citizen (complainant #1) stating that “Phillip Bennett” who lives at 

303 North Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA, is always going 

to the apartment building across the street and people from the

apartment building are always going to his residence and “seeing 

drugs a lot”.

5. That on August 25th, 2015, the Elizabethtown Police 

Department forwarded a Drug Task Force information form from 

a named citizen (complainant #1) stating that “[Appellant]” who 

lives at 303 North Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA has drug 

transactions taking place at all times.

____________________________________________

case, however, the trial court held an abbreviated suppression hearing at 

which only the warrant was admitted into evidence and the parties requested 

time to brief the issues. We have therefore included some excerpts from the 

trial for background purposes.
J-S18020-19

- 3 -

6. That during the week of March 30th, 2017, Your Affiant spoke 

with a Confidential Informant (CI#1). CI#1 related that he/she 

has personal knowledge of an individual who is in the business of 

selling methamphetamine in Elizabethtown, PA. CI#1 advised 

that he/she could controlled [sic] purchases of methamphetamine 

from this individual. CI#1 has demonstrated his/her knowledge 

of Controlled Substances to specifically include 

Methamphetamine, its packaging, pricing, and terminology.

7. That during the week of March 30th, 2017, CI#1 made a 

controlled purchase of a quantity of Methamphetamine from an 

unknown individual in Elizabethtown[,] PA. This purchase was 

made under the direction and control of your Affiant using DTF/DA 

Funds. Your Affiant along with Detectives Lombardo, Vance and 

Ziegler of the Lancaster County Drug Task Force conducted 

surveillance of CI#1 meeting with the unnamed subject, the 

unnamed subject then went to the 300 block of North Hanover 

Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA, the unnamed subject then left the 

area of 300 block of North Hanover Street and returned to CI#1. 

CI#1 was searched before the controlled purchase with negative 

results for contraband. After completing the controlled purchase, 

CI#1 met with your Affiant and turned over a quantity of 

Methamphetamine. CI#1 was then searched again with negative 

results for contraband. Your Affiant performed a field test on a 

portion of the methamphetamine and a positive result was 

obtained. During the controlled purchase, the unnamed subject 

told CI#1 that the methamphetamine was purchased from 

“Ronnie”.

8. That on May 30th, 2017, your Affiant conducted surveillance of 

303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA. At approximately 

1900 hours, your Affiant observed [Appellant] standing on the 

porch of 303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA speaking 

with an unknown male.

9. That on May 31st, 2017, at 1549 hours, your Affiant observed 

[Appellant] leave 303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA[,]

with another male who I recognized to be Jere Kenneth Gilgore[,]

Jr.[,] and get into a silver Dodge Dakota bearing PA registration 

ZBS9552 registered to Jere Kenneth Gilgore[,] Jr[.,] and then 

leave the area. Gilgore had been a subject of investigation for 

methamphetamine sales in the past by Detectives Kelly and 

Parduski of the Lancaster County Drug Task Force. Detectives 

Kelly and Parduski had obtained two controlled buys for 
J-S18020-19

- 4 -

methamphetamine from Gilgore’s residence, 45 N Cherry Alley[,]

Elizabethtown[,] PA in October and November of 2015. During 

their investigation, they also observed his silver Dodge Dakota

bearing PA registration ZBS9552 parked outside.

10. That on June 7th, 2017[,] at approximately 0305 hours, your 

Affiant, along with Detective Cavanaugh of the Lancaster County 

Drug Task Force, travelled to 303 N Hanover Street[,]

Elizabethtown[,] PA[,] with the intent of conducting a trash pull. 

This would be in an attempt to corroborate the information that 

your Affiant has compiled on [Appellant] (DOB: 01/05/1969) and 

his residence of 303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA. 

Upon my arrival, I observed a black in color garbage can with 

several black bags of garbage inside or it. This trash can was on 

the edge of the sidewalk closest to the road, in front of 303 N 

Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA[,] and clearly placed for 

pick-up. Your Affiant then conducted a trash pull and seized three

garbage bags filled with trash. Your Affiant then conducted a 

search of the garbage and located the following items: (1) small 

empty clear sandwich bag containing residue that tested positive 

for methamphetamine on 06/07/20 at 1249 hours, (1) small clear 

zip-loc bag containing residue that [tested] positive for 

methamphetamine on 06/07/2017 at 1310 hours, (1) clear ziploc baggie missing the entire bottom half on the bag, (1) piece of

PPL [power utility] documentation with the name “[Appellant]” 

and the address of “303 N. Hanover St.”, and methamphetamine

pipe with residue. Additionally, while conducting the trash pull, 

your Affiant observed a silver motorcycle bearing PA registration 

Y2274 parked in front of the trash can, on the street, in front of 

303 N Hanover Street[,] Elizabethtown[,] PA. This motorcycle and 

registration is in the name of “[Appellant]”. Your Affiant took 

pictures of said items of evidence and are hereby attached to this 

application.

11. That based on your Affiant’s training and experience utilizing 

clear plastic bags is a common tactic that drug dealers use to 

package and distribute narcotics (including but not limited to 

methamphetamine). This is corroborated by the (1) sandwich 

baggie containing methamphetamine residue and the (1) small 

clear plastic bag containing methamphetamine residue located in 

the trash pull.
J-S18020-19

- 5 -

12. That within the last 48 hours, your Affiant received information 

from CI#1 that [Appellant] had additional quan[t]ities or 

methamphetamine for sale.

Aff. of Probable Cause, 6/11/17, at ¶¶ 3-12.

Based on the affidavit, the magisterial district judge authorized the 

search warrant of Appellant’s home, which occurred on June 12, 2017. The 

police seized, among other items, 46 grams of methamphetamine, a blue 

notebook listing Appellant’s drug sales, drug paraphernalia, digital scale, small 

plastic baggies, and $1,280. Compl., 6/12/17. The police arrested and 

charged Appellant.

On September 12, 2017, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the 

evidence recovered from Appellant’s home. The trial court held a brief hearing

on February 2, 2018, at the conclusion of which the trial court ordered the 

parties to file memoranda of law addressing the suppression motion. On 

February 23, 2018, Appellant filed a memorandum of law contending that the 

information in the affidavit of probable cause “was stale, nonspecific, lacked 

independent police corroboration of information given by unreliable and 

unproven informants, and failed to provide a valid and substantiated nexus to 

believe there would be” drugs in Appellant’s home. Appellant’s Mem. in Supp. 

of Suppression, 2/23/18, at 7. According to the docket, the trial court denied 

the suppression motion on April 17, 2018, but the order was not included in 

the certified record transmitted to this Court.
J-S18020-19

- 6 -

The parties proceeded to a bench trial, at which the parties agreed to 

stipulate to certain facts:

[Commonwealth]: The first witness would be Detective Joseph 

Grego from DTF. All the detectives are from the Lancaster County 

Drug Task Force. Detective Grego would testify the search 

warrant was approved and signed by MDJ Hartman on June 11th 

of 2017. There was a briefing at the office of DTF on June 12, 

2017, approximately 9 a.m. The search warrant was executed on 

June 12 of 2017. They knocked and announced. They breached 

the door. There were four people inside. The service portion of 

the search warrant was read, and the Miranda rights were read 

off of the little card that they carry with them. The search began. 

The role of Detective Grego was to collect and log the evidence 

that the other detectives found. That evidence was put in the 

evidence locker and, in fact, it’s my understanding that defense is 

stipulating to chain of custody for all the exhibits.

[Appellant’s trial counsel agreed to stipulate].

[Commonwealth]: Detective Grego and Detective [Anthony] 

Lombardo read the Miranda warnings off of the long form, the 

eight-and-a-half-by-11 sheet, to [Appellant] once he was taken 

back to the station. [Appellant] made statements of, it’s my 

stuff.[3] He was selling to make money. He was having trouble 

with employment. He buys the methamphetamine out of state 

and he gets more or less two ounces of meth and sells it about an 

ounce a month. Most of the money in the safe is from the drug 

sales. 

N.T. Trial, 6/7/18, at 4-5. Appellant testified that the drugs were for his 

personal use. Id. at 12. 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant had initially moved to suppress the statements, but withdrew the 

claim at the suppression hearing. N.T. Suppression, 2/2/18, at 2.
J-S18020-19

- 7 -

Appellant was convicted, and on September 14, 2018, the trial court 

sentenced Appellant to fifteen months to four years’ imprisonment. Appellant 

timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. 

Appellant raises the following issue:

Did the trial court err in refusing to suppress evidence where the 

warrant issued was based on information which was stale, 

nonspecific, lacked independent corroboration of an unreliable 

third-party informant, and failed to provide a nexus to believe 

there would be drugs found at [Appellant’s] home when the 

warrant was executed?

Appellant’s Brief at 5.

Appellant raises several challenges to the search warrant. First, he 

contends that the information set forth in the third, fourth, and fifth 

paragraphs of the affidavit of probable cause is stale. Id. at 14. Second, 

Appellant argues the police failed to corroborate the stale information and 

establish the reliability of the named person and confidential informant. Id.

at 15. Appellant emphasizes that the confidential information did not identify 

the seller of the drugs or any details of the alleged sale. Id. at 16. Moreover, 

Appellant claims, the information was double hearsay. Id. 

Appellant also asserts that the information in the eighth and ninth 

paragraphs of the affidavit, in which a police officer observed Appellant with a 

person of interest eighteen months earlier, was also invalid. Id. at 17. 

Specifically, he alleges that the police officer failed to substantiate Appellant’s 

identification and that being seen with a person of interest eighteen months 

ago did not establish criminal behavior. Id. 
J-S18020-19

- 8 -

Appellant contends the evidence seized from the trash pull was 

insufficient to establish probable cause. Id. at 17-18. In particular, Appellant 

concedes that drug paraphernalia, as well as evidence linking Appellant to the 

address in question, was in the trash. Id. Appellant, however, suggests that 

the evidence only establishes that he lived at the address and that “someone 

at the residence may have smoked methamphetamine.” Id. at 18. Appellant 

insists, nonetheless, that the affidavit did not establish probable cause that 

methamphetamine would be found.4 Id. at 18.

We state the standard of review:

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to the denial of 

a suppression motion 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. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the 

suppression court, we may 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 record as 

a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are 

supported by the record, we are bound by these findings and may 

reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. The 

suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an 

appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression 

court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions 

of law of the courts below are subject to our plenary review.

____________________________________________

4 We note that Appellant is not challenging the constitutionality of the trash 

pull itself, but whether the evidence retrieved from Appellant’s trash 

established probable cause. See generally Commonwealth v. James, 69 

A.3d 180, 182 (Pa. 2013) (citing California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 37 

(1988), for proposition that the “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit 

warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside curtilage 

of home”).
J-S18020-19

- 9 -

Moreover, appellate courts are limited to reviewing only the 

evidence presented at the suppression hearing when examining a 

ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress.

Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 201 A.3d 757, 763 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation 

omitted).

In evaluating an affidavit of probable cause,

[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, 

common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set 

forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis 

of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is 

a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be 

found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is 

simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for 

concluding that probable cause existed.

Commonwealth v. Manuel, 194 A.3d 1076, 1083 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en 

banc) (citation, ellipses, brackets, and quotation marks omitted). “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. Leed, 186 A.3d 405, 413 (Pa. 

2018) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

In Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010), the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained that a “grudging or negative attitude 

by reviewing courts towards warrants is inconsistent with the Fourth 

Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a 

warrant; courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in a 

hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.” Jones, 988 A.2d at 
J-S18020-19

- 10 -

655-56 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Reasonable minds,” the 

Jones Court observed, “frequently may differ on the question [of] whether a 

particular affidavit establishes probable cause, and we have thus concluded 

that the preference for warrants is most appropriately effectuated by 

according ‘great deference’ to a magistrate’s determination.” Id. at 656 

(quotation marks, citation, and footnote omitted).

Instantly, the evidence retrieved from the garbage outside of Appellant’s 

residence included plastic bags containing methamphetamine residue, 

methamphetamine pipe, and mail from a utility company identifying Appellant 

as a resident. See Aff. of Probable Cause at ¶ 10. We agree with the trial 

court that such evidence tended to establish probable cause that Appellant 

was using methamphetamine. See generally Leed, 186 A.3d at 413; Jones, 

988 A.2d at 655-56; Manuel, 194 A.3d at 1083. Because the search warrant 

for use or sale of methamphetamine was based on evidence retrieved from a 

trash pull, the legality of which Appellant did not challenge, the trial court did 

not err in deferring to the magistrate district judge’s determination and 

denying Appellant’s suppression motion. See Shreffler, 201 A.3d at 763. 

We therefore need not address Appellant’s other arguments attacking the 

validity of the other information in the affidavit of probable cause.5 For these 

____________________________________________

5 We agree with the trial court, however, that much of the information in the 

affidavit of probable cause was stale. Cf. Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 
J-S18020-19

- 11 -

reasons, because the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to 

suppress, we affirm the judgment of sentence

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 09/24/2019

____________________________________________

A.3d 1065, 1085 (Pa. 2017) (holding that although the search warrant was 

flawed, ultimately, the error was harmless).