J-A32002-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

IAN CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 392 MDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered February 28, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0004278-2016, 

CP-67-CR-0004279-2016, CP-67-CR-0004280-2016

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2017

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order entered on 

February 28, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, granting, 

in part, Ian Christopher Anderson’s motion to suppress evidence and 

dismissing several charges lodged against Anderson.1 The Commonwealth 

argues the trial court erred in 1) analyzing the suppression issue under the 5th

Amendment rather than the 4th Amendment, and 2) dismissing several of the 

charges.2 After a thorough review of the certified record, relevant law, and 

submission by the Commonwealth3, we reverse the order of February 28, 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The Commonwealth has filed the appropriate Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) certification.

2 The trial court has agreed that the charges should be reinstated.

3 Anderson did not file an Appellee’s Brief in this matter.
J-A32002-17

- 2 -

2017, to allow the trial court to analyze the suppression issue under the 4th

Amendment rather than the 5th Amendment and to reinstate the charges.

We briefly relate the relevant underlying facts of this matter. On July 

9, 2014, Probation Officers Christian Deardoff and Dana Flay conducted an 

unannounced home visit at Anderson’s residence. Anderson was serving a 

sentence of probation having been convicted in February, 2014, of a charge 

of possession of drug paraphernalia. Anderson led the Officers to his bedroom 

on the second floor of the residence. The Officers saw, in plain view, a knife, 

a digital scale and a gun.4 All of these items were contraband pursuant to the 

terms of Anderson’s probation. The Officers also saw a lockbox, which they 

described as being similar to a safety deposit box. They asked Anderson to 

open the box, believing it might contain further incriminating evidence. The 

box was locked, Anderson did not possess the key (or at least did not have 

the key in his immediate possession), and was forced to pry the box open with 

a screwdriver. Inside the box were more drug paraphernalia, a small amount 

of what was believed to be marijuana residue and computer discs, similar to 

CDs or DVDs. Anderson was handcuffed, and the Officers, believing the 

computer discs might have more evidence of drug use contained thereon, 

requested to view the discs on Anderson’s computer. They asked for 

Anderson’s computer password, which he provided. They viewed the discs, 

the first one containing nude images of Anderson’s girlfriend. The second disc 

____________________________________________

4 The Officers determined the gun, a shotgun rifle, was loaded.
J-A32002-17

- 3 -

contained nude images of Anderson’s girlfriend’s minor daughter. At that 

point, Anderson was placed under arrest and given his Miranda5 warnings. 

The search was terminated and the police were called.

Anderson filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the 

search. The trial court determined that Anderson should have been 

Mirandized after the Officers found the computer discs. The trial court 

reasoned that all evidence obtained thereafter, essentially the suspected child 

pornography, was obtained in violation of Anderson’s 5

th Amendment rights 

against self-incrimination and was suppressed. The trial court also dismissed 

all charges associated with that evidence.

The Commonwealth now appeals and argues the trial court improperly 

based its decision to suppress the evidence upon 5

th Amendment 

considerations, whereas suppressions issues are properly determined by 4th

Amendment analysis. We agree that the trial court erroneously considered 

the 5

th Amendment in deciding the instant issue. See Pennsylvania v. 

Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 589-90 (1990) (5th Amendment does not protect a 

suspect from producing real or physical evidence); Commonwealth v. 

Benson, 421 A.2d 383, 387 (Pa. Super. 1980) (4

th Amendment applies to 

physical evidence, 5

th Amendment applies to testimonial or communicative 

evidence). Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the order granting 

____________________________________________

5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).
J-A32002-17

- 4 -

suppression and dismissing the charges.

6, 7 We remand the matter to allow 

the trial court to analyze the issue pursuant to 4

th Amendment considerations.8

 

Order reversed. Case remanded for action consistent with this decision. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/29/17

____________________________________________

6 Specifically, counts 2-11 at docket number CP-67-CR-4278-2016, and all 

counts at docket numbers CP-67-CR-4279-20116 and CP-67-CR-4280-2016.

7 Because of our resolution of the suppression issue, and the fact the trial 

court agreed it had mistakenly dismissed the charges, we need not specifically 

address this issue.

8 Consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9912, and case law applying that section, such 

as Commonwealth v. Arter, 151 A.3d 149 (Pa. 2016), Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 692 A.2d 1031 (Pa. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Parker, 152 

A.3d 309 (Pa. Super. 2016) may also be relevant.