J-S01026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

VICTOR BUENO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 484 MDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 23, 2023

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

No(s): CP-54-CR-0000297-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2024

Victor Bueno appeals from the 121⁄2-to-25-year judgment of sentence 

for his convictions from selling drugs and possessing a stolen gun.

1

 He 

challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through the 

execution of a search warrant. We affirm.

On February 15, 2022, Trooper Russ Rothermel of the Pennsylvania 

State Police obtained a warrant to search a residence in Schuylkill County. 

The owners of the premises were listed as Karla Mitchella Rivera and Edwin 

Sanchez-Arroyo. In the affidavit attached to the warrant, Trooper Rothermel

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a) (receiving stolen property); id. § 6105(a)(1)

(persons not to possess firearms); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) (possession with 

intent to deliver a controlled substance); id. § 780-113(a)(16) (possession of 

a controlled substance); id. § 780-113(a)(32) (drug paraphernalia).
J-S01026-24

- 2 -

detailed the qualifications of a confidential informant who police used in 

investigating suspected drug dealing from the residence:

The confidential informant (hereinafter referred to as CI) 

has been providing information to members of law enforcement in 

excess of four months. The information has included, but is not 

limited to, the names and addresses of area drug traffickers, the 

types of illegal drugs they are distributing, the manner of 

packaging of the illegal drugs and trafficker’s vehicle description. 

The information provided has been proven to be accurate and 

correct through independent investigative techniques, including 

but not limited to surveillance, investigative reports and the 

utilization of other confidential sources. The information that the 

CI has provided has led to controlled purchases of controlled 

substances including Methamphetamine and heroin/fentanyl.

Furthermore, the CI has been a member of the drug culture 

in the county of Schuylkill, Pennsylvania and has managed to gain 

the trust and confidence of area narcotics dealers as well as other 

criminal elements. He/she has become familiar with those 

persons and their operations. The CI has become knowledgeable 

of what these substances look like, how they are normally 

packaged for street sales, their average street price and other 

details involved in the illegal sales of controlled substances. The 

CI has also made statements against his/her penal interest.

Due to the relationship that the CI has with the subject(s) 

of this affidavit they wish to remain anonymous. They fear that 

their safety may be in jeopardy if the target(s) of this investigation 

or any target(s) associates discovered their cooperation with the 

police. The CI is not only concerned about their own safety, but 

also the safety of their family. They [fear retaliation].

Search Warrant, 2/15/22, at 11.

The affidavit described three controlled purchases of illegal drugs from 

the target residence. Id. at 12–14. In each purchase, the confidential 

informant gave a different “unwitting” individual prerecorded funds to buy 

drugs from the residence. The police observed each of these individuals enter 
J-S01026-24

- 3 -

the residence and exit a short time later and meet up with the confidential 

informant. The informant then gave the police an amount of drugs consistent 

with the funds. In the first purchase, the confidential informant told police 

that the unwitting individual said that the drugs were purchased from 

Sanchez-Arroyo inside the residence.

Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the residence and found a 

variety of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns, and money. They arrested 

Bueno and charged him with the above crimes.

 On May 9, 2022, Bueno filed an omnibus motion including a motion to 

suppress the evidence obtained from the search. The suppression court heard 

the motion on July 21, 2022. There, Trooper Rothermel explained that “Edwin 

Sanchez-Arroyo” was mistakenly listed as one of the owners of the residence 

because the confidential informant knew the owner only by his nickname. 

When police executed the search warrant, another person in the residence 

identified Bueno as the person with that nickname. N.T., Suppression, 

7/21/22, at 6–8. 

The court denied suppression. The case proceeded to a stipulated nonjury trial, where Bueno was found guilty of the above offenses. On March 23, 

2023, the court sentenced Bueno to an aggregate term of 121⁄2 to 25 years of 

imprisonment, as well as fines, costs, and restitution.
J-S01026-24

- 4 -

Bueno timely appealed.2 Bueno and the suppression court complied 

with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

Bueno argues that the search warrant was defective and thus illegal. He 

challenges the suppression court’s conclusion that the warrant provided a 

substantial basis for the issuing authority to find probable cause. Specifically, 

Bueno submits that the affidavit did not establish a reason to rely on the 

confidential informant—the police did not corroborate the informant’s reports, 

and the warrant did not state that the confidential informant had given

information that led to arrests or convictions. Bueno notes that he was not 

the “Edwin Sanchez-Arroyo” named as one of the property owners, which 

could show that the informant was unreliable. Furthermore, Bueno submits 

that the warrant gave no basis to establish the reliability of the “unwitting” 

individuals, and it left open the possibility that these persons got drugs from 

someone other than Bueno. Bueno urges that the court should have 

suppressed all evidence seized from his residence based on the invalid

warrant.

The Commonwealth responds that Trooper Rothermel reasonably 

addressed the discrepancy in the property owner’s name at the suppression 

hearing. The Commonwealth provides persuasive authority that unwitting 

individuals described in search warrants may be found reliable if they make

____________________________________________

2 Bueno’s notice of appeal, which he filed pro se while represented by former 

counsel, is legally effective. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 

621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016).
J-S01026-24

- 5 -

statements against their penal interest and police corroborate the information 

they provide. E.g., State v. Brotherton, 859 P.2d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). 

The Commonwealth concludes that the warrant—and the denial of 

suppression—were both proper.

An appellate court reviewing the denial of a suppression motion must 

determine “whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by 

the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are 

correct.” Commonwealth v. Jones-Williams, 279 A.3d 508, 515 (Pa. 

2022). We review questions of law de novo and consider the record from the 

suppression hearing. Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369, 377 

(Pa. Super. 2022). However, any court reviewing a search warrant exercises 

a level of deference to the issuing authority; the court determines “only 

whether a substantial basis exists for the issuing authority’s finding of 

probable cause” and does not invalidate a warrant through a hyper-technical 

reading. Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 263 A.3d 626, 646 (Pa. 2021) (citing 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983), and Commonwealth v. 

Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1031 (Pa. 2012)).

The Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania protect against 

unreasonable searches and seizures. McFarland, 278 A.3d at 377. 

Accordingly, both require search warrants to be issued only “upon probable 

cause,” i.e., “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 
J-S01026-24

- 6 -

should be conducted.” Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 645. The issuing authority 

considers the totality of the circumstances in the affidavit of probable cause, 

“including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay 

information.” Id. at 646.

Notably, the probable cause determination for a search warrant affidavit 

that uses a confidential informant includes consideration of “the informant’s 

reliability and basis of knowledge viewed in a common sense, non-technical 

manner.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2011) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999)). A confidential 

informant’s tip may support probable cause in different ways: “where police 

independently corroborate the tip, or where the informant has provided 

accurate information of criminal activity in the past, or where the informant 

himself participated in the criminal activity.” Id. Our Supreme Court rejected 

requiring a “talismanic recitation of a particular phrase,” such as the

“customary” statement that the informant previously provided information 

that resulted in arrests or convictions. Id. at 1292 (comparing 

Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 917 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

Here, although the search warrant did not state that the confidential 

informant’s information had resulted in arrests or convictions, this was not 

required for probable cause. Id. The affidavit described that the informant

had provided information for four months, which the police corroborated and 

used to make controlled purchases of illegal drugs. It also stated that the 

informant was part of the local drug culture and therefore knew about the 
J-S01026-24

- 7 -

drug dealers and their operations. Viewed in a common-sense, non-technical 

manner, this is a sufficient demonstration of the informant’s reliability and 

basis for knowledge.3

Likewise, the search warrant is not invalid because the confidential 

informant used three different “unwitting” individuals to buy drugs. The 

affidavit describes how each of the controlled purchases was made, with police 

watching the individuals enter the residence and leave a short while later. 

Each time, the informant produced drugs consistent with the prerecorded 

funds that the police provided. This is adequate corroboration of the 

individuals’ activity, which gave the issuing authority a substantial basis to 

find probable cause. Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 646; see Commonwealth v. 

Cameron, 664 A.2d 1364, 1367 (Pa. Super. 1995) (finding a sufficient basis 

to issue a warrant where a reliable informant executed a controlled buy 

through an “unwitting” third party whose reliability was not addressed). 

Because the suppression court properly denied Bueno’s motion to suppress, 

we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

3 The informant’s misidentification of the owner of the premises as “Edwin 

Sanchez-Arroyo” does not negate this reliability. First, the discrepancy in 

names does not appear within the four corners of the search warrant. Second, 

the misidentification is reasonable given that the informant used nicknames 

as part of the drug culture. Finally, the probable cause for the search focused 

on drug sales from the residence, not from any particular individual. Thus, 

the name of the owner was not a factor. Moreover, the police resolved the 

discrepancy when they learned that Bueno was the person who used the 

nickname given by the informant.
J-S01026-24

- 8 -

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 02/09/2024