J-A13014-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RUBEN MORALES 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2631 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 20, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-46-CR-0006582-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2020

Appellant, Ruben Morales, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an 

aggregate term of 2-5 years’ imprisonment, followed by five years’ probation, 

imposed after the trial court found him guilty of, inter alia, corrupt 

organizations and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the factual and procedural background of 

this case as follows:

[Appellant] participated in a corrupt organization that distributed 

marijuana in and around Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 

After the Commonwealth charged him with more than a dozen 

offenses, he filed a pretrial motion seeking to suppress, inter alia, 

evidence seized from 2051 Carlisle Street and 1537 Fontain 

Street, both in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [Appellant] asserted 

the search warrants for those two locations were not supported 

by affidavits that provided sufficient probable cause. This court 

declined to suppress the evidence after a hearing and 

subsequently found [Appellant] guilty at a bench trial of one count 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13014-20

- 2 -

of corrupt organizations,2two counts of possession of marijuana 

with intent to deliver,3 one count of criminal conspiracy,4two 

counts of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity,5three counts of 

criminal use of a communication facility,6four counts of 

possession of a controlled substance[,]7 and one count of drug 

paraphernalia.8 He received an aggregate sentence of two to five 

years in prison, plus five years of consecutive probation.

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b)(1).

3 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(30).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a)(1).

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 5111(a)(1).

6 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a).

7 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(16).

8 35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 

[Appellant] did not file a post-sentence motion. He filed a notice 

of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and later produced 

a concise statement of errors in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b). [T]he Superior Court dismissed the appeal without 

prejudice and remanded the case for resentencing.[1] This court 

____________________________________________

1 With respect to this case’s procedural history, the trial court further explained 

that:

[Appellant] previously filed a direct appeal from his original 

judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Morales, 1805 EDA 

2018, notice of appeal docketed (Pa. Super. June 27, 2018). He 

produced a Pa.R.A.P. 1[9]25(b) concise statement[,] and this 

court authored a Rule 1925(a) Opinion and forwarded the record 

to the Superior Court. Upon defense request, the Superior Court 

dismissed the appeal without prejudice, remanded the case back 

to this court for resentencing[,] and relinquished jurisdiction. Id., 

Order (June 27, 2019). This court subsequently executed an 

agreed[-upon] Order modifying the original sentence to make 

[Appellant] eligible [under] the Recidivism Risk Reduction 

Incentive [Act, 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501-4512]. [Appellant] has now 

filed an appeal from his judgment of sentence, as modified. Under 

the circumstances, this court did not intend to order [Appellant] 
J-A13014-20

- 3 -

issued an Order dated August 20, 2019, modifying [Appellant’s] 

sentence. He has timely appealed again.

TCO at 1-3 (footnote omitted). 

Presently, Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the lower court err in denying ... Appellant’s pretrial motion 

to suppress evidence where the search warrants for the two 

locations in this case did not establish probable cause that there 

was a sufficient nexus between the contraband that was supposed 

to be seized and these locations? 

2. Was the evidence insufficient to prove that ... Appellant was 

guilty of any of the charges for which he was convicted where his 

constructive possession of the controlled substances was not 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Appellant’s Brief at 3. 

I.

In Appellant’s first issue, he argues that the trial court “erred in denying 

[his] pretrial motion to suppress evidence where the search warrants for the 

two locations in this case did not establish a sufficient nexus between 

contraband and those locations.” Id. at 8 (unnecessary capitalization and 

emphasis omitted). He submits that “a fair and objective review of the search 

warrant Affidavits of Probable Cause in this case will persuade this Court that 

____________________________________________

to file a new concise statement of errors. He, nevertheless, 

submitted a concise statement that is almost identical to the one 

previously filed, except it appears to seek to remedy a lack of 

specificity with regard to issue two that this court noted in its 

original opinion.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/22/19, at 1 n.1. 
J-A13014-20

- 4 -

the issuing authority did not have a substantial basis for concluding that

probable cause existed to search these two residences.” Id. 

At the outset, we acknowledge our scope and standard of review for 

such claims. This Court has explained:

[O]ur scope and standard of review of an order denying a motion

to suppress are unique when we are reviewing a magistrate’s 

decision to issue a search warrant. They differ from those cases 

in which we are reviewing a court’s decision regarding evidence 

obtained without a warrant. When reviewing a magistrate’s 

decision to issue a warrant, there are no factual findings from the 

trial court. Thus, we need not 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. Instead, we are merely reviewing the magistrate’s 

decision to issue the warrant. As such, our duty is to ensure that 

the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable 

cause existed. In so doing, the reviewing court must accord 

deference to the issuing authority’s probable cause determination, 

and must view the information offered to establish probable cause 

in a common-sense, non-technical manner.

***

The legal principles applicable to a review of the sufficiency 

of probable cause affidavits are well settled. Before an 

issuing authority may issue a constitutionally valid search 

warrant, he or she must be furnished with information 

sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that probable 

cause exists to conduct a search. The standard for 

evaluating a search warrant is a “totality of the 

circumstances” test as set forth in Illinois v. Gates, 462 

U.S. 213 ... (1983), and adopted in Commonwealth v. 

Gray, ... 503 A.2d 921 ([Pa.] 1985). A magistrate is to 

make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all 

the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, ... 

there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a 

crime will be found in a particular place. The information 

offered to establish probable cause must be viewed in a 

common sense, nontechnical manner. Probable cause is 

based on a finding of the probability, not a prima facie
J-A13014-20

- 5 -

showing of criminal activity, and deference is to be accorded 

a magistrate’s finding of probable cause.

Probable cause does not demand the certainty we associate with 

formal trials. Rather, a determination of probable cause requires 

only that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates a fair 

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in 

a particular place. 

Commonwealth v. Manuel, 194 A.3d 1076, 1080-82 (Pa. Super. 2018) 

(internal citations, footnote, and quotation marks omitted). See also

Commonwealth v. Huntington, 924 A.2d 1252, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2007) 

(“The application for the search warrant must be evaluated from the 

perspective of the issuing magistrate and whether it provides sufficient 

information, within the four corners of the affidavit, to support the conclusion 

that probable cause exists to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime 

will be found in a particular place.”) (citation omitted). 

Here, the affidavits of probable cause outline the investigation of a drugtrafficking organization operated by Jason Marks, Gregory Gaudreau, Michael 

Lynch, Larry Kline, Appellant, and others. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1 at 

3 (Carlisle Affidavit).2 Because the affidavits are lengthy, spanning over 180 

pages, we attempt to summarize briefly the most pertinent information set 

forth in them.

____________________________________________

2 Because the affidavits of probable cause for the Fontain Street and Carlisle 

Street locations are substantially similar, we primarily cite to the Carlisle 

Street affidavit. See also TCO at 5 n.10 (“The affidavits of probable cause 

are substantially the same....”); Appellant’s Brief at 10 (not making any 

distinction between the affidavits); Commonwealth’s Brief at 8 (noting that 

the facts set forth in the affidavits are “essentially identical to each other”). 
J-A13014-20

- 6 -

The drug operation conducted by Marks, Lynch, and Gaudreau was

reported to police by ten confidential informants, a concerned citizen, and 

several unwitting informants. Id. at 7. Collectively, these sources revealed 

that Marks, Lynch, and Gaudreau procured large quantities of marijuana from 

California, transported the marijuana to Pennsylvania, and sold it to drug 

dealers. Id. at 8. 

Between July 7, 2013 and January 11, 2014, Appellant’s phone number 

had 203 telephone contacts with a phone number used by Marks. Id. at 64-

65. Between August 14, 2013 and January 3, 2014, Appellant’s phone number

had 32 telephone contacts with a phone number attributed to Kline, a drug 

supplier in California. See id. at 38, 64-65. Between the dates of July 20, 

2013 and January 2, 2014, Appellant’s phone number had 59 telephone 

contacts with a phone number identified as belonging to Adam Karloff. Id. at 

66.3 

Police conducted controlled purchases and surveillance on members of 

the drug-trafficking organization, details of which are set forth in the 

____________________________________________

3 With respect to Karloff, the affidavit details that the Pennsylvania Office of 

Attorney General, Organized Crime Section, and the United States 

Department of Homeland Security, completed an investigation into a 

marijuana drug trafficking organization operating within the Pennsylvania 

counties of Montgomery and Berks in 2007, which revealed involvement by 

Marks and Appellant in the sale of pounds of high-grade marijuana, though 

they were not indicted in the case. Id. at 17. Instead, law enforcement 

“targeted the hierarchy of the organization[,]” including Karloff, but did not 

charge all of the sub-dealers below him, such as Marks and Appellant. Id. at 

17, 18. An agent that worked on that investigation stated that Appellant and 

Marks were identified as directly below Karloff in the marijuana business. Id. 

at 66.
J-A13014-20

- 7 -

affidavits. See id. at 68-83. Police also obtained approval of a nonconsensual intercept (wiretap) on telephones utilized by various members of 

the organization, noting that “[i]n an attempt to conceal incriminating 

conversation from law enforcement agents who may be monitoring their

conversations and pagers, drug traffickers will use codes and cryptic 

language.” See id. at 83-84, 85. The affidavit provides that the following

interceptions pertinent to Appellant occurred, which we have produced 

verbatim, with the exception of substituting Appellant’s name with Appellant: 

March 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Call 421 on Court Order 38-1 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks, Outgoing call 

to 267-784-3073, utilized by Michael Lynch

This conversation was between Jason Marks and Michael Lynch. 

In the beginning of the conversation they talk about a trailer. 

Marks then said, “I was going to ask you if you wanted to bring 

the rest of those contracts over, everything that’s left on there, 

the remainder of the paperwork, know what I mean, and then we 

can get that out, but I’ll just come over.” Through our training 

and experience we believe Marks attempted to conceal the true 

reason for this call and the need to visit Lynch’s residence. Marks 

initially said contracts and then paperwork but he attempted to 

clarify the true meaning to Lynch by saying, “Know what I mean.” 

We have learned that terms such as “Paperwork” are commonly 

used as a code word. These code words are known by each 

member of the organization. We believe these words used in this 

context are referring to Marijuana being stored at Lynch’s 

residence at 41 Hickory Lane, Boyertown, Berks County, 

Pennsylvania.

[4]

____________________________________________

4 The affidavit sets forth that, based on the affiants’ training, knowledge and 

participation in controlled substances investigations, they know that:

It is common for large[-]scale drug dealers to secrete contraband, 

proceeds of drug sales, and records of drug transactions in secure 
J-A13014-20

- 8 -

As the conversation continued Lynch said he was not currently

home. Marks told Lynch that, “I’m not going over at least an hour 

and a half.” Lynch continued on and said, “Well um give a buzz

and if l have to go anywhere I’ll just leave that thing unlocked.

This portion of the call further supports our opinion that this 

conversation is in furtherance of their drug trafficking 

organization. We received information from that a Confidential 

Informant observed fifty pounds of Marijuana in a garage on 

Lynch’s property located at 41 Hickory Lane, Boyertown, Berks 

County, Pennsylvania. This Confidential Informant also detailed 

how trusted confederates have access to this location. This 

portion of the conversation detailed that the area Marks’ needs 

access to is commonly locked but will be left unlocked for Marks’

access. The exact location is not being disclosed in the 

conversation due to the fact that both of these individuals 

understand the code being used, the area Marks needs to access 

and the purpose for his visit.

On Sunday, March 9, 2014 at 9:00 AM, in reference to calls: 360, 

362, 363, 421, 446, Docket 38-1 E.D. 2014, and calls 533, 534, 

535, 545, 552, Docket 38-3 E.D. 2014, Plant advised that Jason 

Marks would be going to Michael Lynch’s residence, located at 41 

Hickory Lane, Boyertown, Pennsylvania. At approximately 10:00 

AM, Detective Fedak did observe a black Mercedes and a black 

Ford pick-up truck at Marks’ residence, located at 2922 Kutztown 

Road, East Greenville, Pennsylvania. Marks does have a 1995 

Mercedes, Pennsylvania Registration HXB-4548 and a 2004 Ford 

Truck, Pennsylvania Registration ZDS-8238 registered to him with 

the address listed as 2922 Kutztown Road, East Greenville, 

Pennsylvania.

____________________________________________

locations within their residences, the residences of trusted family 

members and associates, garages, basements, attics, 

outbuildings, vehicles, and/or their businesses for their ready 

access and to conceal from law enforcement authorities. We know 

they need ready access to them in order to operate their illegal 

drug business.

Id. at 14. 
J-A13014-20

- 9 -

At approximately 1:00 PM, Detective Fedak drove past Marks’

residence and noticed that Marks’ Ford truck was not parked in his 

driveway.

At approximately 4:21 PM, Detective Leporace observed Marks 

driving his Ford truck, Pennsylvania Registration ZDS-8238 in the 

area of Lynch’s residence located at 41 Hickory Lane, Boyertown, 

Pennsylvania. Marks was the only person in the vehicle. Detective 

Lackner observed the aforementioned Ford truck pull onto Laurel 

Valley Lane which leads to Hickory Lane.

March 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM, 10:18 PM, 10:20 PM, 10:22 PM, 

10:23 PM, 10:34 PM, 10:40 PM, 10:42 PM, 10:46 PM Call 

474, 482, 483, 484, 485, 488, 489, 490, 491on Court Order 

38-1 E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks, 

Incoming/Outgoing calls/text to/from 267-304-2788. 

utilized by [Appellant].

This conversation is between [Appellant] and Jason Marks. 

[Appellant] returned Marks’ phone call. In the beginning of the 

conversation [Appellant] justified why he did not pick up the 

phone. Marks then asked, “Feel like seeing chocolate.” Marks 

then laughed. [Appellant] replied, “I never mind.” We believe the 

term “seeing chocolate” is in actuality a code word used between 

these two individuals to determine a meet location. We have 

learned through our experience in non-consensual interceptions 

that individuals involved in the distribution of controlled substance 

attempt to conceal the exact place of a meeting by using code 

words to determine the location. This is done due to their fears 

of being intercepted. They do not want to give a specific location 

over the phone and alert law enforcement on where the 

clandestine meeting will take place.

As they continued Marks informed [Appellant], “I’m bringing 

fifteen bucks with me you know.” Here again, we believe Marks 

is providing information to [Appellant] in code. We believe 

[Appellant] responded and attempted to legitimize the 

conversation and said, “Yeah, that should do like a half a song 

between we’ll put the money together and make and have her 

give us a lap dance or something.” Marks continued to talk in 

code and said, “I’m a little scattered on it but yeah it’s cool.” We 

have learned from information obtained through this investigation 

that this organization sells various types of Marijuana one of which 

is “Scatter Brain.” We believe when Marks said, “scattered” he 

informed [Appellant] on the type of Marijuana being brought.
J-A13014-20

- 10 -

They agreed to talk again prior to meeting. Marks expects to be 

at the meet location within an hour and a twenty and I’ll be over 

the spot.” [Appellant] responded, “Sounds good brother.” 

Although they did not give a location both know where the 

meeting will take place. We believe Marks is bringing “fifteen” to 

[Appellant]. 

At approximately 9:45 PM, Detective Lackner observed A

Mercedes Benz, dark in color, displaying Pennsylvania Registration 

Number HXB-4548 exit the driveway at 2922 Kutztown Road, E. 

Greenville, Pennsylvania 18041. Surveillance Detectives Lackner 

and Vinter maintained mobile surveillance of the aforementioned 

vehicle as it travelled to the area of the Schuylkill Expressway (Rt. 

76). At that time, Detectives Wood and Rowe participated in the 

mobile surveillance as the Mercedes Benz travelled to the city of 

Philadelphia. During this surveillance, Detective Vinter positively 

identified the driver of the Mercedes Benz as Jason Marks. An 

inquiry made on the aforementioned Mercedes Benz though the 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles shows the registration 

displayed on a 1995 Mercedes Benz registered to Jason Marks, 

2922 Kutztown Road, E. Greenville, Pennsylvania 18041.

In call 482 Marks contacted [Appellant] and attempted to change 

the location and said, “I’ll see you in about twenty, twenty five 

minutes at the roll cage.” [Appellant] does not understand the 

meet location and Marks clarified the location and responded, “The 

one I knocked off it’s hinge.” [Appellant] then understood and 

does not want to meet there and said, “No, no, no, no, no I 

thought you were going to place where you with the chocolate 

lady.... I’m trying to avoid going over there.” The two then agreed 

to go to the initial meet location. Here again the two talked in a 

coded language. This portion of the conversation showed us that 

these individuals have multiple locations where they meet in 

furtherance of their drug trafficking.

At 10:20 PM Marks sent a text to [Appellant] which read, “My car 

don’t lock right so can I put my gym bag in your car when I get 

there.” [Appellant] responded, “K. Forget u gt no tints. Makes 

safety in city a plus. Dnt gt Ur windows broken.”

At 10:34 PM Marks sent a text to [Appellant], which read, “3 

minutes.” We believe Marks informed [Appellant] he was three 

minutes away from the meet location. In call 489 Marks called 

[Appellant], [Appellant] told Marks, “I’ll be right there brother I 
J-A13014-20

- 11 -

can’t talk on the phone my battery dying.” Marks responded, “All 

right later.”

At approximately 10:40 PM, referencing calls number 488, 490 

and 491, Docket 38-1 E.D. 2014, Detective’s Vinter and Wood 

observed Jason Marks enter the parking lot of the Atlantis 

Gentlemen’s Club located at 3813 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 19104. Marks backed his vehicle in to a parking 

space and sat in the vehicle.

At 10:42 PM, Marks sent a text to [Appellant,] which read, “Drive 

through the parking lot behind the club.” Approximately three 

minutes later, [Appellant] responded via text, “Don’t see u.”

Approximately (3) three minutes later, Detective Vinter observed 

a Toyota Camry, White in color, displaying Pennsylvania 

Registration Number HKE-0962, enter the same parking lot. The 

vehicle stopped in the area of Marks vehicle. At the same time, 

Marks was observed exiting his vehicle and yelling something at 

the driver of the Toyota Camry. Both vehicles left the parking lot 

together. An inquiry made on the aforementioned Toyota Camry 

though the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles shows the 

registration displayed on a 1995 Toyota registered to Ruben 

Enrique Morales[, which is Appellant’s name,] address of 3022 N. 

5

th Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110.

At approximately 10:50 PM, both vehicles turned left onto 

Chestnut Street and pulled over to the shoulder of Chestnut Street 

at 37th Street. As Detective Rowe was driving past the vehicles, 

he observed [Appellant] standing at his open trunk. Seconds 

later, Detective Wood drove past the vehicles and observed 

[Appellant] standing at the driver side window of the Mercedes 

Benz talking to Marks who was seated in the driver seat. Both 

vehicles remained at this location for approximately (5) five 

minutes. Detective Wood positively identified the person 

operating the Toyota as being [Appellant].

At approximately 10:55 PM, both vehicles departed the immediate 

area. Surveillance was maintained on the Toyotas Camry being 

operated by [Appellant]. 

As these two individuals talked they alluded to the fact that they 

were going to patronize a drinking establishment. They did not. 

Marks and [Appellant] met on the street and then departed. Due 

to this there was no reason to for Marks to request the placement 

of his gym bag in [Appellant’s] vehicle. We believe this meeting 
J-A13014-20

- 12 -

occurred for a delivery of Marijuana from Marks to [Appellant]. 

We also believe Marks not only spoke cryptically in arranging the 

purpose and location of the meeting but also attempted to justify 

why a bag would be moved from his vehicle to [Appellant’s] 

vehicle.

At approximately 11:15 PM, surveillance followed [Appellant] 

directly to the area of Fontain Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Detective Rowe observed [Appellant] exited his vehicle and walk 

to 1537 Fontain Street, where he utilized a key to unlock the front 

door and enter. Detective Rowe, drove around the block to 

position his vehicle in a secure parking spot. When he returned, 

[Appellant] was observed exiting a secondary unknown address 

on the 1500 block of Fontain and returning to 1537 Fontain Street. 

Seconds later, [Appellant] exited the residence, where he 

appeared to lock the front gate on the door. [Appellant] walked 

back to his vehicle and left the area.

At approximately 11:25 PM, surveillance was maintained on 

[Appellant] as he went to the 2000 block of Carlisle Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Detective Lackner observed 

[Appellant] park his Toyota on Carlisle Street and enter a house 

located at 2051 Carlisle Street, utilizing a key. Approximately ten 

minutes later, [Appellant] exited this residence and left the area 

operating his Toyota.

Surveillance was maintained on [Appellant] as he left 2051 

Carlisle Street. Surveillance lost sight of [Appellant] in the area 

of Front at Diamond Street. Approximately five minutes later, 

Detective Lackner located [Appellant’s] vehicle parked unoccupied 

in the 2100 block of Susquehanna Avenue, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. Surveillance was conducted on the unoccupied 

vehicle for several minutes. During that time, [Appellant] never 

returned.

Detective Harris and Detective Echevarria believe that this is a 

fifteen pound marijuana delivery that began on March 8, 2014 

with Marks contacting Lynch to see if he could stop over the next 

morning. The conspiracy continued on March 9, 2014 when Lynch 

and Marks said, “I was going to ask you if you wanted to bring the 

rest of those contracts over, everything that’s left on there, the 

remainder of the paperwork, know what I mean, and then we can 

get that out, but I’ll just come over.” Marks then picked up the 

marijuana from Lynch to deliver to [Appellant].
J-A13014-20

- 13 -

ADDITIONAL SURVEILLANCE OF [APPELLANT] 

PHILADELPHIA

On Monday, March 17, 2014 at approximately 8:00 AM, Detective 

Vinter conducted surveillance in the city of Philadelphia in search 

of [Appellant’s] vehicle. At approximately 10:00 AM, Detective 

Vinter located a Toyota Camry, white in color, displaying 

Pennsylvania Registration Number HKE-0962 parked unoccupied 

on 15th Street near Fontain Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

This area is within close proximity of 1535-1537 Fontain Street.

The vehicle was snow covered from an overnight snow storm. An 

inquiry made on the aforementioned Toyota Camry though the 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles shows the registration 

displayed on a 1995 Toyota registered to Ruben Enrique Morales, 

[i.e., Appellant,] address of 3022 N. 5th Street, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania 17110.

Detective Vinter drove around the block in attempt to obtain a 

fixed position on the vehicle. When Detective Vinter returned, a 

Hispanic male, believed to be [Appellant] was cleaning the snow 

off the vehicle with a small broom. [Appellant] was wearing blue 

jeans and a grey hooded sweat shirt. After the vehicle was 

cleaned of snow, [Appellant] entered the driver’s seat and left the 

area. He was not followed.

On Friday, March 21, 2014 at approximately 8:00 AM, Detective 

Vinter located a Toyota Camry, white in color, displaying 

Pennsylvania Registration Number HKE-0962 owned by 

[Appellant] parked unoccupied on the southwest corner of 

Diamond Street at Carlisle Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

This area is within close proximity to 2051 Carlisle Street. As 

previously mentioned in a surveillance report dated March 9, 

2014, Detective Lackner observed [Appellant] park his Toyota on 

Carlisle Street where he utilized a key to enter a house located at 

2051 Carlisle Street. Detective Vinter maintained surveillance in 

the area for approximately four hours.

At approximately 12:00 PM, Detective Vinter observed a black 

male, wearing a red jacket with the words “Chiefs Football” written 

on the back. The unknown black male knocked on the front door 

of 2051 Carlisle Street and remained there for several minutes. 

After receiving no answer, he left the area.

***
J-A13014-20

- 14 -

March 17, 2014 at 2:24 PM, 8:00 PM, 8:01 PM, 8:06 PM, Call 

1537, 1636, 1637, 1640 on Court Order 38-1 E.D. 2014, a 

phone utilized by Jason Marks, Incoming/Outgoing 

calls/text to/from 267-304-2788, utilized by [Appellant].

At 2:24 PM Marks called [Appellant] they exchange greetings and 

then discussed a party at Marks’ house located at 2922 Kutztown 

Road, East Greenville, Pennsylvania that [Appellant] attended. 

Marks then asked, “Did you leave that application with me?” 

[Appellant] said, “Yeah.” Marks responded, “You did oh boy 

(laughs) where did I put it (laughs)?” [Appellant] continued, “I 

knew you fucking forget.” [Appellant] then ended call. We believe 

when Marks said the term, “application” he is referring to U.S. 

Currency. [Appellant] understood the code. We believe the 

“application” is actually partial payment for the previously 

received marijuana on March 9, 2014. This is further supported 

in later intercepted conversations.

In the first text Marks sent a text to [Appellant], “I’m losing my 

mind looking for that application.” [Appellant] responded, "Check 

under Ur bed.” After a few minutes Marks texted back, “Ya I must 

have kicked it on there. 5 pages.”

***

March 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Call 220 on Court Order 38-1 

E.D. 2014 (Supplemental Order-215-679-2699), a phone 

utilized by Jason Marks/[Appellant], Outgoing call to (215) 

554-7297, utilized by unknown male referred to as “Henry”

The call starts and two men conversed in Spanish. The caller 

asked for “Henry.” “Henry” does not recognize the number but 

recognized the voice and asked, “Who’s this [Appellant], yeah, I’m 

on the road who’s phone is this?” [Appellant] then said, “I’m at a 

friend’s house, It’s that I don’t have cell phone, wait a minute I 

remember the number of the guy I’ll call him from here.” In this 

portion of the call [Appellant] explained to his drug confederate 

why he called from an unknown number. [Appellant] said, “I’m 

at a friend’s house.” We know through surveillance and other 

intercepted conversations that [Appellant] was calling from Marks’

residence located at 2922 Kutztown Road, East Greenville, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

[Appellant] continued, “No, crazy, I’m here, when can I see you, 

cause my friend is leaving Monday?” Henry responded, “Oh yeah.” 

Here, [Appellant] attempted to notify Henry that an individual of 
J-A13014-20

- 15 -

importance to their organization was here but Henry did not 

understand. [Appellant] continued to stress the need for the two 

to meet when he said, “The person you have to talk to.” Henry 

then asked, “Where’s he going to?” [Appellant] explained, “No, 

because he lives in the up there in the mountains.” Henry then 

said, “I’m up in the mountains, he’s in upstate New York?” No 

motherfucker, the friend of mine that’s on the other side in the 

mountains. Henry understood the cryptic description of this 

person’s residence and said, “Oh on the west side.” [Appellant] 

responded, “Uh-huh”. [Appellant] continued to talk in code and 

attempted to clarify who this individual was in relation to their 

illegal activity. We believe when [Appellant] detailed that this 

individual lived in the mountains and on the other side he was 

referring to someone living in California. Through the course of 

this investigation we have learned that this organization’s source 

of marijuana supply is California. We have not received any 

information that Marks was departing the area on the 24th of 

March. This leads us to believe that [Appellant] was referring to 

someone that was in the area from California that was a member 

of this drug trafficking organization.

Henry then said, “Ah, ok, ok all right, all right, right now I’m going 

to a couple of appointments you want me to call you back on this 

number when I get done?” [Appellant] then instructed Henry, 

“No, no call me on my phone, it’s that I’m at this house I don’t 

have service but we’re not going to be here, call me on my phone. 

It’s that I want to talk for the man can understand the position 

that you are in, he’s talking about somethings that are in line one 

what you are talking about but the manner to do it with the papers 

are right and the address of the people that are involved so they 

can help do things the way have to be so there isn’t problems,” 

the call the ends. Through our training, knowledge and 

experience we believe this conversation was [Appellant] 

attempting to broker a marijuana arrangement between two 

separate parties one of which is Henry Santana and the other we 

have learned is Larry Kline. At the time of this call we did not 

know Larry Kline was in the Pennsylvania area but through 

information received through intercepted conversations and 

surveillance we know Larry Kline was in Pennsylvania and in 

Montgomery County and is returning to California on the March 

24th.

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 at 2:00 PM, in reference to call 110 

at 1:52, Docket 38-1 E.D. 2014, Plant advised that [Appellant] 
J-A13014-20

- 16 -

was at Jason Marks’ residence, located at 2922 Kutztown Road, 

East Greenville, Pennsylvania.

Detective’s Fedak and Walsh did observe a grey four door sedan 

with a Florida Registration parked in the driveway at Marks’

residence. The Plant advised that Ruben Morales Melendez[, 

which closely resembles Appellant’s name,] does have a 2006 

Buick Lucerne, grey in color, displaying Florida Registration 

V971RC registered to him with an address of 4240 South West 

153 Place, Miami, Florida. This information was ascertained 

through a law enforcement data base. Surveillance was unable to 

ascertain a registration out of fear of being compromised.

***

March 22, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Call 1011 on Court Order 38-3 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Michael Lynch Incoming Call 

from 707-834-5621, utilized by Larry Kline

Lynch received an incoming call from Larry Kline. Kline asked, 

“What are you doin?” Lynch responded, “I’m on the golf course.” 

Then someone is heard saying “Aw fuck.” Kline then asked, “Want 

to get some dinner?” Lynch responded, “We probably can, your 

in town I guess huh?” Kline answered, “S/L Yeah.” Lynch asked, 

“Where you out now?” Kline told Lynch, “I’m ah over at the ah 

fucking dwarf’s, he’s going to the Poconos for some gambling 

thing with the wrestling he won’t be back till late so I’m with ah 

[Appellant] I was hoping we could all hang out and get some 

dinner.” Lynch said, “He won’t be around but we’re definitely up 

for it.” They agree to talk after Lynch is done golfing.

March 22, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Call 1019 on Court Order 38-3 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Michael Lynch Incoming Call 

from 707-834-5621, utilized by Larry Kline

Michael Lynch received a call from Larry Kline. Kline said he was 

at the Tiki Bar having a drink and waiting for Lynch to come home.

Lynch said that he was at home having a drink and invited Kline 

to come up. Kline said he was with [Appellant], and they were 

going to come up.

Surveillance 

In reference to call 1019 at 6:36 PM, Docket 38-3 E.D. 2014, Plant 

advised that [Appellant] and Larry Kline were going to Lynch’s 

residence. 
J-A13014-20

- 17 -

At approximately 6:49 PM, through the use of fixed surveillance, 

Plant advised that a Hyundai, silver in color, arrived in the vicinity 

of Lynch’s residence located at 41 Hickory Lane, Boyertown, 

Pennsylvania 19512.

***

March 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM, 11:58 AM, 11:59 AM, 12:01 

PM, 12:02 PM, 12:03 PM, 12:04 PM, Call 2362, 2365, 2366, 

2368, 2369, 2370, 2371, on Court Order 38-1 E.D. 2014, a 

phone utilized by Jason Marks, Outgoing/Incoming 

call/text to/from 267-304-2788, utilized by [Appellant]

Marks called [Appellant] and asked, “What are you doing today?” 

Then the call is dropped.

[Appellant] responded to the previous call via text which read, “Gt 

bad service here. Still sleeping herw.” Marks responded, “Omw”.

We believe that [Appellant] attempted to tell Marks of his location 

but Marks did not understand. We also know that the text 

acronym “Omw” means on my way. Marks told [Appellant] that 

he is on his way. Through surveillance and intercepted 

communications we know that [Appellant] is still with Kline and 

they are currently at Lynch’s residence located at 41 Hickory Lane, 

Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania.

[Appellant] then texted to confirm the meet location and sent, 

“2mikes rt ? Not downtown”. This text message elicited a 

response from Marks, “Are you here im on the fuckin turn pike.” 

[Appellant] confirmed his and Kline’s location and texted, “At 

Mikes.” We believe Marks was enroute to a meet location in 

Philadelphia to meet [Appellant] and Kline due to the text 

message conversation Marks responded, “Meet me at my place 

getting off the Lansdale exit I’ll be home in 25 minutes.” During 

this exchange [Appellant] confirmed that they were still at Lynch’s 

residence.

March 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM, 12:11 PM, Call 2373, 2377 on 

Court Order 38-1 E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason 

Marks Incoming/Outgoing Call from 707-834-5621, 

utilized by Larry Kline

After the series of text messages from [Appellant], Kline called 

Marks. It is apparent that Kline is with [Appellant] and that Kline 

is privy to the communications between [Appellant] and Marks. 

Marks said, “You guys kill me.” Kline asked if Marks was home 
J-A13014-20

- 18 -

and he told him he was not but was driving back from the turnpike. 

Marks continued on and said, “You knew I was coming down there 

today, I told you, no I told him I had a taste for the chocolate. I 

said that plain as day yesterday.” As Marks talked to Kline said, 

“I thought we were coming to your house. He was talking about

me coming to your house.” We believe that the meeting that 

occurred on March 22, 2014 at Marks’ residence laid the 

foundation for a follow up meeting between these participants of 

this drug trafficking organization. The two parties were confused 

on the location of the meeting. Marks believed he was meeting 

[Appellant] and Kline in Philadelphia. Marks used coded 

terminology that was previously intercepted as the meet location. 

[Appellant] and Kline believed they were returning to Marks 

residence to meet. We believe that the residence located at 2922 

Kutztown Road, East Greenville, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania is the center point of Marks portion of the 

organization. We also believe through surveillance and 

intercepted conversation that the residence/buildings located at 

41 Hickory Lane, Boyertown, Berks County, Pennsylvania is the 

center point of Lynch’s portion.

As the conversation continued, Kline said “He talked about me 

coming to your house but. Marks replied, “well yeah that’s you

me but he needed something..” Marks then mumbled, “for his ah 

paperwork.” Kline then responded, “We’ll ah come by your house 

in a ... I don’t know in a bit, I’m going to grab something to eat 

and shit.” Marks the said, “okay cause like I don’t like ta ... have 

to take it back then you know what I mean ... cause I don’t wanna 

figure” Kline then interrupted, “Yeah He’ll figure it out, he’ll figure 

it out.” The two individuals talked cryptically to conceal the true 

nature of the need for this clandestine meeting. The two talked 

in code and mumbled and ended the conversation when it became 

too detailed.

Marks then called Kline back and said, “You know I’m gonna, I’m 

comin through Greenlane, I’m gonna go up to Bear Creek and 

hang out, they’re doin the snowmobile races up there... I was 

already taken out of my day to go do that for him cause he was 

up my ass about it yesterday so now that I’m not doing that I’m 

going up there like I was supposed to.” Kline then responded, “All 

right go ahead we’ll...” They continued to talk and prior to the call 

ending Kline said, “All right I’ll call you in a bit I’ll see you up 

there.” 
J-A13014-20

- 19 -

In the follow up conversation Marks tells the two that he is going 

to Bear Creek. Bear Creek Mountain Resort was having snow 

mobile races on this date. Kline agreed to meet with Marks at this 

location. We know that this meeting will also include [Appellant].

March 23, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Call 2404 on Court Order 38-1 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks Outgoing Call 

from 267-772-1791, subscribed to Dana Crist utilized by an 

unknown male 

Marks told the unknown male that he arrived at Bear Creek. This 

individual was intercepted numerous times in regards to Marks 

going to Bear Creek. Marks asked the unknown male, “Did you 

see [Appellant] or Larry?” The Unknown male said, “No.” Marks 

continued to talk and said, “I knew they weren’t going to come 

over, they were like oh, we’re hungry we’ll see you over there. 

I’m like why don’t you just fucking eat there. That’s what fucked 

up my whole day up or I’d be up there already.” The unknown 

male said, “It’s all good man, you have to do what you have to 

do.” Marks then responded, “[Appellant] got these documents 

you got to look at in the morning, so I started driving down there, 

well he never told me he never went home last night they went to 

Lynchies and partied all night.” Marks complained about driving 

to the city and that they were at “Mike’s.”

In this conversation Marks complained about his morning and his 

partial drive to Philadelphia. He told the unknown male that he 

doubted [Appellant] and Kline were going to go Bear Creek but 

needed to see him. We know through the surveillance that 

[Appellant], Kline and Marks met and talked at Bear Creek 

departed and then returned to Marks’ residence.

On Sunday, March 23, 2014, in reference to calls 2379 and 2404, 

Docket 38-1 E.D. 2014, Plant advised that Jason Marks was 

planning to meet Jeff Roth, [Appellant] and Larry Kline at the Bear 

Creek Mountain Resort and Conference Center located at 101 Doe 

Mountain Lane, Macungie, Pennsylvania 18062 for a snow mobile 

event.

Surveillance 

At approximately 9:00 AM, Detective’s Vinter and Wood went to 

the Bear Creek Mountain Resort/Conference Center and confirmed 

the resort was having a “snow mobile drag race competition”. 

Detective Vinter and Wood maintained surveillance at the resort.
J-A13014-20

- 20 -

At approximately 1:45 PM, Detective Walsh arrived at the Bear 

Creek Mountain Resort/Conference Center and observed a 

Mercedes Benz, displaying Pennsylvania Registration Number 

JHN-0729, being operated by Jason Marks arrive. Marks parked 

his vehicle in the upper parking lot near the resort and walked 

toward the hotel/ski area.

March 23, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Call 2422, 2430 on Court Order 

38-1 E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks 

Incoming/Outgoing Call from 707-834-5621, utilized by 

Larry Kline

In call 2422 Marks called Kline to check on their location. Marks 

said, “Where you at?” Kline confirmed to monitors that 

[Appellant] was still with him when he said, "We’re on our way to 

Bear Creek where you at?” Marks then described his location at 

Bear Creek. Kline told Marks, “I’ll be up there in like ten minutes.” 

In the second call Kline arrived at Bear Creek and contacted Marks 

to ascertain his location. Marks told Kline, “I came into that lower 

bar the regular one where we had dinner.” Kline said he will see 

Marks in a minute.

March 23, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Call 2450 on Court Order 38-1 E.D. 

2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks Incoming Call from 215-

272-1112, utilized by Unknown Male.

Marks received a call from an unknown male and they exchanged 

greetings. The unknown male then said, “Larry told me to give 

him a call I don’t know if they are still around.” Marks responded, 

“They just left my house .. they’re probably on their way to the 

turnpike right now if you want to give em a buzz.” This is yet 

another local individual in contact with Kline. Kline instructed this 

individual to call him. We know Larry Kline is currently utilizing at 

least one communication device in furtherance of his portion of 

this organization. The communication we identified was a Verizon 

Wireless mobile phone 707-834-5621. This call further 

substantiated Kline being at Marks’ residence.

The unknown male declined calling Kline at that time and then 

said, “Hey a [Appellant], [Appellant] gave me a chore to do I

probably”. Marks understood the “chore” given by [Appellant] to 

the unknown male and responded, “I know whenever this week 

that’s fine.” The caller said, "Probably gonna be Tuesday.” We 

believe this “chore” is an instruction received by this individual by 

[Appellant]. Due to the fact that they use the code word “chore”
J-A13014-20

- 21 -

we further believe that this action is in furtherance of this drug 

trafficking operation.

The Unknown male continued on and talked about problems with 

his Lincoln. The unknown male said, “My place is up at 

Quakertown so I’ll just get in touch with you all right. I didn’t 

know if you guys were hanging out tonight or doing anything 

what’s Larry heading back to California?” Through this portion of 

the call we are able to determine that not only does the Unknown 

Caller know Kline but knew that he is from California with pending 

plans to return to California.

Marks answered the caller, “I guess he’s leaving at eight in the 

morning.” The caller continued on about the “chore”, “All right I’ll

be in touch with you if it happens tomorrow if not Tuesday.” Marks 

then told the caller about Kline, “He didn’t seem like he wanted to 

hang and party, he just came in to get some numbers straight.”

When Marks said, “He didn’t seem like he wanted to hang and 

party, he just came in to get some numbers straight” leads us to 

believe that Kline was in this part of the country in regards to the 

marijuana trafficking organization. We also believe Marks told the 

unknown male that Kline was here to focus on the task at hand, 

“get some numbers straight.” Through our training, knowledge 

and experience we know that large scale drug organization handle 

large amounts of illegal drugs and in turn the U.S. Currency 

generated from their illegal activity. We also know that the illegal 

drug, in this investigation marijuana, equates to money. The 

quicker the product is ordered, obtained and then distributed the 

quicker the drug traffickers yield their profit. We know Larry Kline 

arrived in Pennsylvania to meet with important members of his 

drug trafficking organization, including but not limited to, 

[Appellant], Michael Lynch and Jason Marks. The existence of 

these meetings was documented through intercepted 

communications and surveillance. We know [Appellant], Kline and 

Lynch met at Lynch’s residence located at 41 Hickory Lane, 

Boyertown, Pennsylvania. This meeting was arranged via Kline’s 

Verizon Wireless phone and Lynch’s phone. The initial 

conversation intercepted informed monitors that Kline wanted to 

meet with Lynch, Marks and [Appellant] at the same time but 

Marks was unavailable.

The next day after meeting with Lynch, Kline orchestrated another 

meeting with [Appellant] and Marks. This meeting was arranged 

on his Verizon Wireless phone 707-834-5621. Marks, [Appellant] 
J-A13014-20

- 22 -

and Kline met in a public place. They were together for 

approximately one hour talking. They then departed the public 

location and immediately met again at Marks’s residence located 

at 2922 Kutztown Road, E. Greenville, Pennsylvania 18041. They 

were at this location getting “numbers straight” for approximately 

two and a half hours. The change of location leads us to believe 

that portions of this conversation were too sensitive in nature to 

discuss in a public location and/or they needed access to items 

stored within Marks’ residence. We believe the phone calls and 

meetings between these individuals occurred to finalize details of 

a pending marijuana delivery and/ or a previous marijuana 

delivery received by the Montgomery/Berks County portion of this 

organization.

Surveillance 

At approximately 2:54 PM, in reference to call 2422, Docket 38-1 

E.D. 2014, Plant advised surveillance that Larry Kline was 10 

minutes away from the Bear Creek Mountain Resort/Conference 

Center.

At approximately 3:06 PM, Detective Vinter observed a Hyundai, 

silver in color, displaying Florida Registration Number BPI-A49 

arrive at the resort. As previously documented in surveillance 

reports, this is a rented vehicle and operated by Larry Kline and/or 

[Appellant]. An inquiry made through the Berks County Police 

Radio Network on BPI-A49 shows it displayed on a Hyundai 

registered to PV Holding Co., address of 8600 Hanger Blvd., 

Orlando, Florida.

Detective Vinter followed the vehicle to the parking area. Two 

males believed to be [Appellant] and Larry Kline exited the vehicle 

and walked toward the competition.

At approximately 4:00 PM, Detective Vinter and Fedak, acting in 

an undercover capacity, observed four males sitting in the 

grille/bar area. The Grille is a full-service restaurant and bar 

offering a spectacular mountainside view. Three of the four 

individuals were positively identified to be [Appellant], Larry Kline 

and Jason Marks. The remaining individual was believed to be Jeff 

Roth.

At approximately 4:15 PM, it appeared the individuals were 

getting ready to leave the establishment. Detective Fedak and 

Vinter, who were standing within close proximity of the 
J-A13014-20

- 23 -

individuals, overheard one say; “Be careful, stay in the left lane.” 

They all left the area and walked to their respective vehicles. 

Surveillance was maintained on the Hyundai, silver in color, 

displaying Florida Registration Number BPI-A49. Although it was 

not known who the operator of the vehicle was, it is believed the 

vehicle was occupied by [Appellant] and Larry Kline. Surveillance 

followed the vehicle directly to the Jason Marks’ residence, located 

at 2922 Kutztown Road, E. Greenville, Pennsylvania 18041.

Detective Walsh observed the vehicle enter the driveway and 

park. Two males were observed exiting the vehicle and walking 

toward the residence.

At approximately 5:28 PM, Detective Lackner observed (3) three 

males standing next to the Hyundai. Moments later, the males 

returned to the residence.

At approximately 7:08 PM, Detective Lackner observed an 

unknown male enter the Hyundai and back it up against the house 

and partially out of view. Moments later, Detective Lackner 

observed the Hyundai exiting the driveway where it proceeded 

southbound on Kutztown Road. Surveillance lost sight of the 

vehicle prior to arriving at RT 663.

At approximately 8:15 PM, Detective Vinter arrived in the area of 

2051 Carlisle Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Detective Vinter 

observed [Appellant’s] Toyota Camry, white in color, displaying 

Pennsylvania Registration Number HKE-0962 parked unoccupied 

on the northeast comer of Diamond Street at Carlisle Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This area is within 30 yards of 2051 

Carlisle Street. An inquiry made on the aforementioned Toyota 

Camry though the Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles shows 

the registration displayed on a 1995 Toyota registered to Ruben 

Enrique Morales[, i.e., Appellant], address of 3022 N. 5th Street, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110.

At approximately 9:58 PM, Detective Fedak and Reynolds 

observed a Hyundai, silver in color, displaying Florida Registration 

Number BPI-A49 parked unoccupied parked on the northeast 

comer of Diamond Street at 15th Street. This area is located within 

close proximity of the Toyota Camry, owed by [Appellant] that

was parked on the northeast corner of Diamond Street at Carlisle. 

Both vehicles remained at the aforementioned locations.

Surveillance was terminated at 11:30 PM.

***
J-A13014-20

- 24 -

March 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, 5:26 PM, Call 2991, 2998 on 

Court Order 38-1 E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason 

Marks Outgoing call to 267-304-2788, utilized by 

[Appellant]

In the first call Marks and [Appellant] talked about meeting. 

Marks told [Appellant] that he was currently in Philadelphia. 

Marks asked [Appellant], “Should I come by and see you or ain’t 

it worth it right now?” [Appellant] responded, “If you want to 

come by, you can come by I’d like to talk to you about a couple 

of things but ah it’s up to you.” Marks confirmed that he would 

see [Appellant]. We believe through our training, knowledge, 

experience and information gleamed from this investigation we 

believe Marks attempted to see [Appellant] to obtain U.S. 

Currency. When Marks asked, “ain’t it worth it right now?” we 

believe Marks asked [Appellant] if he had enough U.S. Currency 

to justify Marks’s trip. We believe [Appellant] not only agreed to 

meet Marks but also showed his concern for talking on the phone.

[Appellant] showed his hesitation about talking on the phone 

when he said, “I’d like to talk to you about a couple things.” We 

have learned that individuals involved in the distribution of illegal 

drugs will commonly openly discuss general conversation and/or 

issues that are not illegal. We also learned that when the 

conversation turns to their illegal activity they speak cryptically or 

in code but if the conversation needs to detailed they will attempt 

to meet in person. We believe [Appellant] showed his concern by 

trying to meet with Marks to talk in person.

In the second call, Marks called [Appellant, and] they briefly talked 

about meeting. Marks told [Appellant] that he looked at house to 

purchase with “Mike” to renovate and sell. [Appellant] then 

attempted to end the call. [Appellant] said, “Call me back later, 

I’m busy right now, call me, call me back later when you’re coming 

through back up I won’t be at the house just call me we’ll meet 

somewhere.” Marks responded, “Is it important?” [Appellant] 

said, “No.” Then Marks continued, “I just need, I just wanted to 

see you by Monday you know so we could get that ah paper signed 

to send it out in the mail.” [Appellant] then asked, “What’s the 

date?” Marks answered, “Ah, Tuesday is when it needs to be in, 

when it’s going out in the mail. I just need to have the contract 

signed by then so whenever, just so you know, whatever by then 

that’s good.” [Appellant] responded, “Maybe I’ll see you Monday.” 

The conversation continued and Marks told [Appellant] about a 

bonfire at Marks residence.
J-A13014-20

- 25 -

We believe the second conversation further substantiated our 

belief that Marks wanted to see [Appellant] to obtain U.S. 

Currency for previously delivered marijuana. We believe that 

when Marks said, “I just wanted to see you by Monday you know 

so we could get that ah paper signed to send it out in the mail”, 

Marks was telling [Appellant] he wanted the U.S. Currency. We 

have learned through our training and experience that 

organizations, such as this drug organization, will gather their 

money from their customer base and transport it to their source 

of supply to purchase more of their illegal product. We believe 

that this marijuana trafficking organization is preparing to 

purchase more marijuana and are pooling/collecting U.S. 

Currency to prepare for the purchase.

***

March 28, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Call 3225 on Court Order 38-1 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by Jason Marks Incoming call 

from 215-272-1112, utilized by Unknown Male

The two talked and Marks explained why he was not around to 

meet the unknown male. The unknown male asked, “Did you want 

to maybe stop over?” Marks said, “You want me to swing past the 

house I’m picking my son up right now.” The unknown male 

responded, “I just left [Appellant’s] house. Actually, I just left, I 

did his personal house, I did all his other houses in the past.” The

agreed to talk again to arrange the meeting Marks said, “Dump 

that off that’ll be fine.” The unknown male asked, “Did you see 

that guy from the band.” Marks responded, “Yeah, that’s not 

going to happen.”

We know this individual in contact with [Appellant], Larry Kline 

and Jason Marks. This conversation shows how [Appellant] has 

access and control over numerous residences and one these 

residences is referred to as his “personal house.”

Id. at 97-104, 127, 140-42, 144-45, 146-53, 169-71, 172. 

In addition, the Fontain Street affidavit provides the following 

information regarding Appellant:

March 21, 2014 In a series of telephone calls/texts 

between [Appellant] and an unknown male using 

telephone facility 909-446-2610, intercepted on Court 

Order 38-7 E.D. 2014
J-A13014-20

- 26 -

[Appellant] and the unknown male discuss the fact that 

[Appellant] has this male’s motorcycle and is holding it as 

collateral as the male still owes [Appellant] approximately $5,000. 

During these conversations and text messages, [Appellant] tells 

the male that the motorcycle is being kept at a location he 

describes to the other male as 2027 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania.

March 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM Call 313 on Court Order 38-7 

E.D. 2014, a phone utilized by [Appellant] incoming call 

from 215-290-7229, utilized by an unknown male

[Appellant] received a call from an unknown male. The Unknown 

male requested to meet with [Appellant]. [Appellant] said he was 

having lunch with an unknown female at Fontain. They agree to 

meet in a short period of time at the caller’s residence or at a 

residence on Fontain.

In call 328 [Appellant] said he was in Fontain and exiting the door. 

[Appellant] gave directions to the unknown male to Fontain. Det. 

Echevarria listened to the directions given by [Appellant] and 

these directions are consistent to the residence located at 1537 

Fontain Street.

Grand Jury Information

On Monday, March 24, 2014, Montgomery County Grand Jury 

Subpoena Number 31 (Investigation Number 14, MD: 1607-13) 

was served upon the Exelon Corporation, DBA: PECO Energy for 

information including, but not limited to subscriber and billing 

information in the name of [Appellant] and properties that have 

been identified thus far to be associated with [Appellant].

On Monday, March 31, 2014, in response to that subpoena, PECO 

Energy provided the requested information, which included but 

not limited to the residence of 1537 Fontain Street, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. The PECO Energy service for 1537 Fontain Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is the name of Ruben Morales[, which 

is Appellant’s name,] at 4240 SW 153rd Pl, Miami, Florida.... 

See Commonwealth’s Exhibit 2 at 174-75 (Fontain Affidavit).

Here, the trial court determined that the affidavits submitted in support 

of the search warrant requests for 2051 Carlisle Street and 1537 Fontain 
J-A13014-20

- 27 -

Street contained sufficient probable cause to support a nexus between those 

locations and the presence of controlled substances, books and records, U.S. 

currency, and telephones, among other things. The trial court rationalized:

[R]eference is made to [Appellant] throughout the affidavits of 

probable cause prepared in support of search warrants for both 

Philadelphia locations. See N.T., 11/14/17; Exhs. C-1 and C-2,

pp. 18, 65-66, 98-103, 127, 140-[]42, 146-[]53, 169-[]71 and 

175. Those references detail [Appellant’s] involvement in the 

marijuana distribution organization and his entry into the two 

Philadelphia properties on March 9, 2014, following what law 

enforcement believed was a drug transaction.

In giving the required deference to the issuing authority’s 

probable cause determination, this court stated at the suppression 

hearing:

This case involves the investigation of an alleged drug 

conspiracy spanning several counties, including 

Montgomery County and Philadelphia. The affiants are 

experienced drug enforcement officers. The affiants assert 

that[,] in their training and experience[,] persons involved 

in drug trafficking operations secret[e] contraband, 

proceeds of drug sales, records of drug transactions and 

currency in secure locations in their residences. Persons 

involved in drug trafficking commonly use cellular phones[,]

which contain saved messages and outgoing phone calls and 

photographs and other information about co-conspirators 

and customers. The affidavit details a number of telephone 

calls involving [Appellant] and other members of the alleged 

drug distribution conspiracy. The affiants assert that the 

coded language used in these calls, based on their training 

and experience, demonstrate the participants’ involvement 

in drug distribution.... During one of the recorded phone 

calls, [Appellant] is to meet with an alleged co-conspirator 

in Philadelphia. Based on the contents of those calls and 

the affiants’ interpretation of the coded language used by 

the participants, the affiants believe that [Appellant] was 

engaged in a transaction involving fifteen pounds of 

marijuana. [Appellant] is then seen driving to 1537 Fontain 

Street in Philly and using a key to enter the property. 

Shortly thereafter, [Appellant] is seen leaving the Fontain 
J-A13014-20

- 28 -

Street property and driving to a property at 2051 Carlisle 

Street in Philadelphia. [Appellant] is seen entering the 

property using a key. Investigators requested warrants for 

both the Fontain Street and Carlisle Street properties in 

order to search for, among other things, controlled 

substances, books and records, U.S. currency, indicia of 

occupancy and telephones and the information contained 

therein. The search warrants were executed by a Common 

Pleas Court judge in Philadelphia.... Sufficient evidence 

exists in the Affidavit of Probable Cause in order for the 

issuing authority to have found a fair probability that 

contraband, including currency and cellular phones, would 

be found at the two properties.

Based on the above, the affidavits submitted in support of the 

requests for search warrants for the two Philadelphia properties 

contain sufficient probable cause. This court, therefore, did not 

err in declining to upset the issuing authority’s probable cause 

determination and denying [Appellant’s] motion to suppress. 

TCO at 5-6 (internal citation and footnotes omitted). 

Appellant argues that, in the trial court’s opinion, the trial court “referred 

to a single incident, discussed in the Affidavit of Probable Cause, on March 9, 

2014[,] where the police observed what they believed could be a transaction 

involving fifteen pounds of marijuana, with ... Appellant then driving to 1537 

Fontain Street and allegedly using a key to enter the premises[,]” and then 

shortly thereafter, police saw him “leaving that location and driving to 2051 

Carlisle Street, again supposedly entering the property using a key.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 9. He contends that “these factual references could not 

be sufficient, upon objective review, to establish a fair probability that 

contraband would be found on those premises.” Id. at 9-10. He points out 

that “[a]t no time did the police observe [him] engage in a narcotics 

transaction[,]” “[n]o bags were seen going or coming from either location[,]” 
J-A13014-20

- 29 -

and he “was not even observed carrying anything in his hands.” Id. at 11. 

Moreover, he says that the Commonwealth has asserted that “‘members of 

this drug organization’ kept items related to their drug business, such as cash, 

drugs and cell phones, in their homes, and that evidence obtained through 

recorded conversations between members of the organization showed plans 

to pick up cash or drugs at each others’ homes[,]” but insists that none of 

those conversations involved him and made no reference to either the Fontain 

Street or Carlisle Street properties. See id. at 11-12. He also states that, 

“[a]lthough the [a]ffidavit discussed information provided from October 2010 

to February 2013 by ten informants and four concerned citizens, none of that 

information pertained to ... Appellant or to either of these locations.” Id. at 

12. He says that the Commonwealth is “relying upon a theory that people 

who may be involved in marijuana trafficking would likely place their sales 

proceeds and records of transactions in their homes[,]” and states that there 

are no decisions from our Supreme Court determining that “a fair probability 

of marijuana being found in a location attributed to the [d]efendant 

automatically exists merely because he has allegedly been engaging in a drug 

trafficking scheme with others.” Id. at 12, 13. 

No relief is due. Looking at the information provided within the four 

corners of the affidavits from the perspective of the issuing authority, we deem 

it sufficient to support the conclusion that probable cause existed to believe 

that contraband or evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the Carlisle 

Street and Fontain Street properties. See Huntington, supra. As the 
J-A13014-20

- 30 -

Commonwealth discerns, “[t]he warrant affidavits established that [Appellant] 

was part of an active drug trafficking organization whose members used their 

homes to store drugs, money, and other items related to their illegal business. 

There was thus a fair probability that evidence related to drug trafficking would 

be found inside [Appellant’s] homes.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 10. The 

Commonwealth aptly observes:

[Appellant] was connected to the homes on Fontain and Carlisle 

Street. Police determined that [Appellant’s] name was on the 

electric bill at Fontain Street. He went directly to Fontain Street 

after the transaction with Marks on March 9, 2014, and entered 

and left that house utilizing a key. [Appellant] also went [to] 

Carlisle Street right after the transaction with Marks, using a key 

to enter and exit. And on other occasions, police observed 

[Appellant’s] car parked close to the Carlisle Street house, and, 

on one of those occasions, saw [Appellant] cleaning snow off [of] 

the car, thus supporting the inference that he resided on Carlisle 

Street. 

Id. at 15; see also Appellant’s Brief at 8 (referring to these locations as “two 

residences”). Moreover, intercepted calls and surveillance suggested that 

Appellant probably conducted drug trafficking out of his homes; for instance,

an unknown male — who had contact with Kline, Marks, and Appellant — told 

Marks that he had just left Appellant’s personal house, and had, in the past,

visited all of Appellant’s other houses. See Carlisle Affidavit at 172. 

In addition, because the affidavits detail a widespread drug trafficking 

organization of which Appellant was an active, high-ranking member, we find 

distinguishable the cases relied upon by Appellant involving merely one or two

drugs transactions. See Appellant’s Brief at 12-23. Instead, we deem more 

apt the case of Commonwealth v. Iannelli, 634 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 
J-A13014-20

- 31 -

1993), in which this Court rejected Iannelli’s argument that no probable cause 

existed for a search warrant of a house where the police did not state specific 

facts to support that the house was Iannelli’s residence, and the only 

connection between him and the house was the averment that it was his 

residence. Id. at 1131. This Court deemed sufficient the police officers’ 

averments that, through electronic, photographic and physical surveillance, 

they had determined that Iannelli resided there and was heading illegal 

gambling operations. Id. Further, we stated that “it was a matter of common 

sense that the most likely place to find the physical evidence of gambling 

would be at Iannelli’s home[,]” and accordingly concluded that the affidavit 

provided probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant. Id. 

at 1132. 

Similarly, and given the totality of the circumstances set forth in the 

affidavits — including, inter alia, Appellant’s numerous communications with 

Kline and Marks, his cryptic conversations and the affiants’ learned 

interpretation of them, Appellant’s meetings with Kline, Marks, and Lynch, the 

2007 investigation, and the March 9, 2014 surveillance — the issuing authority 

in the case sub judice made a practical, common sense decision that there 

was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of drug trafficking would be 
J-A13014-20

- 32 -

found at the Carlisle and Fontain properties.5 Therefore, we conclude that the 

trial court properly denied his motion to suppress. 

II.

In Appellant’s second issue, he argues that “the evidence was 

insufficient to prove that [he] was guilty of any of the charges for which he 

was convicted in the lower court where constructive possession was not 

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Appellant’s Brief at 24 (capitalization 

and emphasis omitted). He claims that the Commonwealth did not prove that 

____________________________________________

5 To the extent Appellant claims that the warrants were too old given the time 

that passed between the March 9, 2014 surveillance and the execution of the 

warrants at the end of that month, we deem this argument waived as he does 

not indicate to us where he raised it below. See Appellant’s Brief at 13-14; 

see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived 

and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(e) 

(“Where under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable on appeal unless 

raised or preserved below, the argument must set forth, in immediate 

connection therewith or in a footnote thereto, either a specific cross-reference 

to the page or pages of the statement of the case which set forth the 

information relating thereto as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c), or substantially 

the same information.”); Commonwealth’s Brief at 20 (arguing that Appellant 

waived this issue by not raising it in the suppression court below). 

Nevertheless, even if not waived, we would agree with the Commonwealth 

that “[w]hen viewed in the totality, ... the affidavits established evidence of an 

ongoing drug trafficking business that was likely to continue to exist up to the 

time the warrant was issued and executed.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 20 

(citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 114, 118 (Pa. 1995) (plurality) 

(“A showing that criminal activity is likely to have continued up to the time of 

the issuance of a warrant renders otherwise stale information viable.”)

(citations omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Macolino, 485 A.2d 1134, 

1138 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1984) (“Probable cause for the issuance of a search 

warrant must be established at the time the warrant is issued; therefore, 

evidence of criminal activity at some prior time will not support a finding of 

probable cause on the date the warrant issues unless it is also shown that the 

criminal activity continued up to or about that time.”) (citation omitted). 
J-A13014-20

- 33 -

he had “conscious dominion or control over the controlled substances that 

were seized” from either the Carlisle or Fontain Street properties. See id. at 

25. 

Our standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims is wellestablished:

The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 

is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light 

most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence 

to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond 

a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh 

the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In 

addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by 

the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be 

resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and 

inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be 

drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth 

may sustain its burden of proof of proving every element of the 

crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, 

the entire record must be evaluated and all the evidence actually 

received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while 

passing on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the 

evidence produced, is free to believe all, part[,] or none of the 

evidence.

Commonwealth v. Bricker, 882 A.2d 1008, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation 

omitted). 

When substances are not found on the defendant’s person, the 

Commonwealth must establish that the defendant constructively possessed 

the substance. Id. This Court has explained:

Constructive possession requires proof of the ability to exercise 

conscious dominion over the substance, the power to control the 

contraband, and the intent to exercise such control. Constructive 

possession may be established by the totality of the 
J-A13014-20

- 34 -

circumstances. We have held that circumstantial evidence is 

reviewed by the same standard as direct evidence—a decision by 

the trial court will be affirmed so long as the combination of the 

evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the trial court reasoned:

[I]n addition to a number of relevant pieces of evidence, including 

thousands of dollars in U.S. currency and drug paraphernalia, the 

search of 2051 Carlisle Street in Philadelphia resulted in the 

seizure of marijuana, heroin and cocaine. The search of 1537 

[Fontain] Street revealed the presence of a large amount of 

marijuana and other indicia of drug activity....

The evidence presented at the stipulated bench trial proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] had actual and/or 

constructive possession of the controlled substances found at the 

Philadelphia properties. The evidence showed [Appellant] was 

involved in a marijuana distribution organization with a number of 

other individuals. [Appellant] had access and keys to both 

Philadelphia locations and was seen entering the properties 

shortly after a suspected drug transaction on March 9, 2014. 

[Appellant] was inside the Carlisle Street residence at the time the 

search warrant[] was executed. During that search, [Appellant] 

complained about laws against marijuana.[6] When reminded that 

it is illegal in Pennsylvania to traffic marijuana, [Appellant] 

demonstrated his consciousness of guilt by getting on his knees 

and asking a detective to shoot him. All of this evidence amply 

demonstrated that [Appellant] was part of a marijuana 

distribution organization and that he possessed the controlled 

substances found at the two Philadelphia locations in connection 

with his involvement in the trafficking operation.

TCO at 7-9 (internal citations omitted).

____________________________________________

6 Specifically, at trial, Detective Michael Reynolds testified that, as state 

troopers were about to begin searching the Carlisle Street house pursuant to 

the warrant, Appellant told him that “the police were the criminals and that 

marijuana plants are made by God and we had no right to interfere with God 

or interfere with enforcing the laws of marijuana.” N.T. Trial, 11/14/17, at 

77. 
J-A13014-20

- 35 -

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth 

as the verdict winner and considering the totality of the circumstances, we 

agree with the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to prove Appellant’s 

intent and ability to control the controlled substances found at the Carlisle 

Street and Fontain Street properties.

7 Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s 

sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/19/2020

____________________________________________

7 Appellant mentions that, when the Carlisle Street warrant was executed, 

“there was a female in the house as well, in a bedroom on the second floor.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 27 (citation omitted). This Court has stated that, “[w]here

more than one person has equal access to where drugs are stored, presence 

alone in conjunction with such access will not prove conscious dominion over 

the contraband.” Bricker, 882 A.2d at 1016 (citation and brackets omitted). 

“Rather, the Commonwealth must introduce evidence demonstrating either 

[the a]ppellant’s participation in the drug-related activity or evidence 

connecting [the a]ppellant to the specific room or areas where the drugs were 

kept.” Id. (citation and brackets omitted). Here, the Commonwealth 

introduced adequate evidence demonstrating that Appellant participated in 

the trafficking of marijuana.