J-S44009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

THE GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY OF 

LEHIGH VALLEY, INC. 

Appellant

v.

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE 

COLONIAL REGIONAL POLICE 

DEPARTMENT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1266 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered April 19, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-48-MD-0000207-2023

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2024

Appellant, The Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Lehigh Valley, Inc., appeals 

from the order entered on April 19, 2023, which dismissed Appellant’s Petition 

for Return of Property. We affirm.

On February 15, 2023, Appellant filed a Petition for Return of Property 

pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588 (hereinafter 

“Appellant’s Petition” or “Petition”). Within its Petition, Appellant averred that

it is a nonprofit religious organization, which owns, operates, and manages a 

Sikh Temple in Nazareth, Pennsylvania. Appellant’s Petition, 2/15/23, at 2. 

According to Appellant, on January 15, 2023, the Colonial Regional Police 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S44009-23

- 2 -

Department (hereinafter “the Police”) responded to an incident at Appellant’s 

Temple, where “individuals interfered with the donation box . . . held by” 

Appellant. Id. at 3. Appellant alleged that, in response to the situation, the 

Police “seized possession of [] approximately $1,500.00 . . . , the proceeds of 

the donation box.” Id. at 3-4. Appellant claims that the Police refused to 

return the money to Appellant. See id. at 3-4. Therefore, Appellant filed a 

Petition, under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588,

1

requesting that 

the trial court enter an order directing the Police and the Northampton County 

District Attorney’s Office to return control of the money to Appellant. Id. at 

4.

On April 19, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s Petition. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court concluded that Appellant was 

not entitled to relief under Rule 588, as the Police did not “seize” the money. 

Specifically, the trial court held:

Following a hearing on April 19, 2023, [the trial court] 

determined that [Appellant] and a third party disagreed over 

ownership of the money at [Appellant’s] premises on January 

15, 2023. [The Police] came to the premises in response to 

the dispute over the money. Pursuant to an agreement with 

[Appellant] and the third party, [the Police were] given the 

____________________________________________

1

In relevant part, Rule 588 declares:

A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not 

executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of the 

property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful 

possession thereof.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 588(A).
J-S44009-23

- 3 -

money for safekeeping until [Appellant] and the third party 

agreed who owned the money. On January 20, 2023, without 

the presence of the third party, [Appellant] asked [the Police] 

to return the money to them. Because the third party did not 

agree to this, [the Police] did not return the money to 

[Appellant] at that time.

. . .

Therefore, because there was an agreement for the [Police] 

to take the money until [Appellant] and the third party 

resolved the ownership of the money, there was no 

interference with [Appellant’s] possessory interest in the 

money and there was no “taking” of the money. As such, 

there was no seizure under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 588.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/6/23, at 4-5 and 10-11 (citations omitted).

In its opinion, the trial court thoroughly summarized the evidence it 

received during the April 19, 2023 hearing:

[During the hearing, the trial court] viewed body camera 

footage from [Sergeant Keith Kulp, of the Colonial Regional 

Police Department, which showed what occurred when the 

Police] responded to the scene on January 15, 2023 and when 

they were given the money. The footage was admitted into 

evidence and marked as an exhibit. . . . The body camera 

footage of January 15, 2023 showed [Sergeant Kulp] . . .

engage in the following dialogue with [Appellant’s 

representative] and the third party:

SERGEANT KULP: So, I talked to the chief, ok, uh –

PERSON ONE: Chief -- ?

SERGEANT KULP: Yep, Chief --, he said would it resolve 

the issue if we take the box today? 

PERSON ONE: You?

(Person One walks away and Sergeant Kulp walks over to 

another person in the temple)
J-S44009-23

- 4 -

SERGEANT KULP: Would it resolve the issue today if we 

take the box [with the money] and hold onto it for now?

PERSON TWO: Yeah, I mean wait, let me -- I don't want 

to speak for anybody but what is going to happen next 

week when there's another box here[?]

SERGEANT KULP: I don't know, I don't know but the chief 

said if both parties agree for us to take the box and hold 

it for now until you guys figure this out.

PERSON TWO: But what we're saying is because if we 

leave the donation box here and both parties locked it.

SERGEANT KULP: What if you have two donation boxes? 

One for your group to put in and one for their group to 

put in.

PERSON TWO: So the issue is taking the money out. 

That's the only thing.

SERGEANT KULP: What if you have control of one box and 

they have control of one box and you both have separate 

boxes.

PERSON [TWO]: But you can't have people, like hey, 

donate here, donate here that's -- I'm saying better than 

that they should prepare to lock the doors. That's what 

I'm saying.

SERGEANT KULP: Well you know we can't do that. That 

has to be done through you guys or the court.

SERGEANT KULP: We won't even open it up, we'll just 

take the box and secure it.

PERSON TWO: But you guys will be here next week again.

(side talk)

(Person One comes back over)

PERSON ONE: (inaudible) 
J-S44009-23

- 5 -

SERGEANT KULP: It's still a civil issue -- we don't control 

the banks, we don’t control the finance, we don't control 

anything else. So I talked to the chief about this whole 

thing and in order to resolve this today so there's no 

physical violence against anybody he said bring it up to 

them should we take the box for today and then you guys 

resolve the issue, whatever you got to do.

PERSON ONE: You know what it is, it's got nothing to do 

with the $300.00 in there nobody cares about that it's 

about the principle.

SERGEANT KULP: I know, it's about the principle of the 

whole thing and I understand that and I explained that to 

him it's about the principle of the whole thing so, but we 

are trying to avoid any physical confrontation today, 

because that's what's going to happen, I mean, you go 

open that box up and then whoever starts fighting even 

if it's both sides we're gonna arrest both parties. That's 

what's gonna happen. That's what we're here for. You 

guys open that box up, which you have a right to do, you 

open that box up, everybody starts fighting, we're just 

gonna take everybody.

PERSON ONE: Yeah, makes sense.

SERGEANT KULP: So, we're not gonna stop anybody from 

not opening that box, put it that way, so. You guys wanna 

open it up, it's your choice, we're just gonna take anybody 

into custody who fights.

PERSON ONE: The thing is, I know I can't convince them 

to go, I know I can't without opening the box. And I tried 

it -- (inaudible).

PERSON TWO to OFFICER: You don't take the box but you 

can take the money, the contents of what they want.

OFFICER to PERSON TWO: Do you have to count it?

PERSON TWO: Yeah, they can have one guy and --
J-S44009-23

- 6 -

OFFICER to PERSON TWO: Correct, so we'll open the box, 

sit down and count it and then turn the money over to us.

SERGEANT KULP: And then we'll control it for now until 

you guys figure it out.

PERSON TWO: Yes.

SERGEANT KULP to PERSON ONE: Alright, how about this, 

how about this. Can we just get this resolved. Two 

people from their side, two people from your side sit here 

together and count the money and then we'll control it 

until you guys figure it out.

PERSON ONE: Ok, so here's the thing, I was talking to 

them, they are ok to -- we are going to move on to next 

week, we don't want the money today.

SERGEANT KULP: So you just want them to –

PERSON ONE: Nope, nobody touches it.

SERGEANT KULP: Nobody touches it.

PERSON ONE: We will deal with it next week.

SERGEANT KULP: So you want to put a lock on it today?

PERSON ONE: We have a lock.

SERGEANT KULP: You have your lock on it, so you're 

going to let them put their lock on it?

PERSON ONE: Why don't we just leave it like this?

SERGEANT KULP: But that's not going to appease this 

situation. You know that. So what's the issue?

PERSON ONE: So pretty much what you're saying is, let 

both of them count and then you take the money?

SERGEANT KULP: Yeah.

PERSON ONE: Ok.
J-S44009-23

- 7 -

SERGEANT KULP: Two from you, two from them, count 

together and we'll take it until you guys figure it out.

PERSON ONE: Alright that's good.

SERGEANT KULP: Ok. Alright.

SERGEANT KULP to PERSON TWO: Two people from you, 

two people from them and then everybody else move 

back. 

SERGEANT KULP: Ok everybody else can move back so 

there's no issues and no problems and we'll stay here 

while it's counted.

CONSTABLE: Is that the agreement?

[SERGEANT] KULP: Yeah, they agreed to it and also they 

can do it right here while we are standing here.

(Begins counting money)

Additionally, Sergeant Kulp testified during the hearing on 

April 19, 2023, that there was an agreement between [the 

Police, Appellant], and the third party where [the Police were]

to take and hold the money for safekeeping until [Appellant]

and the third party agreed who owned the money. Sergeant 

Kulp's testimony on this issue was as follows:

SERGEANT KULP: From beginning to end [the body 

camera video is] two hours long we were there for. But 

this portion here is going to talk about –

THE COURT: Just give her your name.

SERGEANT KULP: My name is Sergeant Keith Kulp with 

the Colonial Regional Police Department. This portion 

here where it's going to come up is where . . . the 

agreement was made between both parties to turn over 

the money -- to count the money together, to turn it over, 

but there's also a portion just a little bit before this where 

[Appellant], this gentlemen back here in the black coat, 
J-S44009-23

- 8 -

at one point -- it's on the video here where he said his 

group didn't even want the money.

[ATTORNEY FOR THE POLICE]: Play that for the judge too.

In the video, Sergeant Kulp counted the money in front of 

[Appellant] and the third party and stated the amount. Both 

[Appellant] and the third party agreed for the [P]olice to 

count the money and keep it until the parties reached an 

agreement on the ownership of the money. In the video,

[Person One] for one party agreed in the following exchange 

with Sergeant Kulp:

SERGEANT KULP: Two from you, two from them, count 

together and we'll take it until you guys figure it out.

PERSON ONE: Alright that's good.

[Person Two] for the other party agreed in the following

exchange with Sergeant Kulp and another police officer:

OFFICER to PERSON TWO: Correct, so we'll open the box, 

sit down and count it and then turn the money over to us.

SERGEANT KULP: And then we'll control it for now until 

you guys figure it out.

PERSON TWO: Yes.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/6/23, at 4-5 and 10-11 (citations omitted).

As noted above, after hearing this evidence, the trial court concluded 

that the Commonwealth did not seize any property in this case and, therefore,

Rule 588 did not provide Appellant with a vehicle for the return of the property. 

Trial Court Opinion, 7/6/23, at 4-5 and 12. The trial court thus dismissed 

Appellant’s petition on April 19, 2023. Trial Court Order, 4/19/23, at 1-2. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now raises two claims to 

this Court:
J-S44009-23

- 9 -

[1.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it 

determined that no seizure of property occurred when the 

[Police] confiscated $1,456.00 in currency belonging to 

[Appellant] and refused to return it when asked to do so?

[2.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it 

determined that jurisdiction under Pennsylvania Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 588 failed to exist when law enforcement

refused to return personal property belonging to [Appellant] 

after being asked to do so?

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (some capitalization omitted).2

“Our review of a trial court’s decision on a petition for the return of 

property is limited to examining whether the findings of fact made by the trial 

court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court abused 

its discretion or committed an error of law.” Singleton v. Johnson, 929 A.2d 

1224, 1227 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Further, Appellant’s claims require that 

we interpret and apply Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588. The 

interpretation of a rule of criminal procedure is “a question of law, for which 

our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” 

Commonwealth v. Hann, 81 A.3d 57, 65 (Pa. 2013). “The Rules of Criminal 

Procedure are to ‘be construed in consonance with the rules of statutory 

construction,’ Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(C), which requires us to interpret the 

provisions in accord with the plain meaning of their terms.” Commonwealth 

v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 716 (Pa. 2014) (brackets omitted).

____________________________________________

2 “[B]oth this Court and the Commonwealth Court have jurisdiction to decide 

an appeal involving a motion for the return of property filed pursuant to 

[Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 588.” Commonwealth v. 

Durham, 9 A.3d 641, 642 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2010).
J-S44009-23

- 10 -

In relevant part, Rule 588 declares:

A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not 

executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of 

the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful 

possession thereof. Such motion shall be filed in the court of 

common pleas for the judicial district in which the property 

was seized.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 588(A).

Rule 588 is clear. According to its plain terms, the rule only permits 

“[a] person aggrieved by a search and seizure” to “move for the return of 

property.” See id. “A ‘seizure’ of property . . . occurs when there is some 

meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that 

property.”3 Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992) (some quotation 

marks omitted). In the case at bar, the Police did not affect a “seizure” of the 

money, as the Police did not interfere with anyone’s possessory interest in the 

property. Instead, as the trial court concluded – and as the record 

demonstrates – Appellant and a third party disagreed as to the ownership of 

a sum of money and, due to this disagreement, Appellant, the third party, and 

the Police entered into an express agreement, where the Police agreed to 

retain possession of the currency until Appellant and the third party “agreed 

who owned the money.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/6/23, at 4-5 and 10-11. Upon 

the occurrence of this event, the Police agreed to return the money to the 

____________________________________________

3 Appellant agrees that the current appeal turns on “whether a seizure 

occurred under the law.” Appellant’s Brief at 17 n.5. Therefore, we will not 

discuss the separate issue of whether Appellant was “aggrieved by a search.” 

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 588.
J-S44009-23

- 11 -

lawful owner identified by agreement between Appellant and the third party.

Id. at 4-5. Further, the trial court concluded, there was no evidence that 

Appellant and the third party came to an agreement as to who legally owned

the money. Id. Therefore, under the express agreement between Appellant, 

the third party, and the Police, the Police continued to retain possession of the 

money. Id. at 5.

Here, Appellant, the third party, and the Police entered into an express 

agreement where the Police retained possession of the money until a stated 

event occurred, at which time the Police agreed to return the money to the 

lawful owner identified by agreement between Appellant and the third party. 

Since the express agreement between Appellant, the third party, and the 

Police transferred possession of the money to the Police until its lawful owner 

was identified, the acceptance and retention of the money by the Police did 

not constitute a “seizure” under the law, as the Police did not interfere with 

anyone’s possessory interests in the money. See Soldal, 506 U.S. at 61. 

Since Appellant has not been “aggrieved by a . . . seizure,” Pennsylvania Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 588 does not provide Appellant with a vehicle for the 

return of this property. The trial court thus properly dismissed Appellant’s 

Rule 588 petition and Appellant’s claims to the contrary fail. 

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
J-S44009-23

- 12 -

Date: 2/23/2024