Title: Com. v. Ryan
Citation: 400 A.2d 1264, 484 Pa. 602
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 1979

484 Pa. 602 (1979) 400 A.2d 1264 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Patrick RYAN and Marianne Casano, Appellants. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Leslie SHAHEEN, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 12, 1979. Decided May 1, 1979. *603 *604 William R. Lee, Scranton, for Patrick Ryan. George W. Westervelt, Jr., Stroudsburg, for Marianne Casano. Charles P. Eyer, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., James F. Marsh, Dist. Atty., Marc Wolfe, Stroudsburg, for appellee. Bruce A. Carsia, Norma Chase, Pittsburgh, for Leslie Shaheen. Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Charles W. Johns, Kemal Alexander Mericli, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee. Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. The instant appeals involve a single question of law which has never been addressed by this court: Can an issuing authority validly issue a search warrant for premises outside his or her magisterial district but within the same judicial district? We answer in the affirmative. Appellants at No. 513 January Term, 1978, Patrick Ryan and Marianne Casano, were charged with violating the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.[1] Appellant at No. 153 March Term, 1978, Leslie Shaheen, was charged with operating a lottery. In both cases, evidence was seized pursuant to search warrants issued by district justices, authorizing a search of premises outside the magisterial districts to which the issuing district justices had been duly elected. *605 In both cases, motions to suppress, raising the issue presented in these cases, were filed. The suppression court in Monroe County ordered the evidence suppressed in the prosecutions of Ryan and Casano. Superior Court reversed, Commonwealth v. Ryan, 257 Pa.Super. 538, 391 A.2d 612 (1978), and we granted the petitions for allowance of appeal filed by Ryan and Casano. In the case of appellant Shaheen, the suppression court denied the suppression motion. In a nonjury trial, appellant was found guilty of operating a lottery. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and was sentenced to a six-month prison term in the Allegheny County Jail. The Superior affirmed, Commonwealth v. Shaheen, 257 Pa.Super. 393, 390 A.2d 1294 (1978), and we granted Shaheen's petition for allowance of appeal. Pa.R.Crim.P. 2001 provides: We must thus decide the extent of territorial jurisdiction conferred upon a district justice. Article 5, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: Further, Article 5, § 7(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides: Discussing these two sections in Collins v. Gessner, 452 Pa. 471, 476-77, 307 A.2d 892, 894-895 (1973), Mr. Justice Roberts, speaking for a unanimous court, stated: Collins thus makes clear that unless specifically limited, a district justice's jurisdiction is concurrent with that of a judge of the court of common pleas.[3] We thus believe a district justice has at least county-wide jurisdiction. Appellants, however, believe that the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure compel a different result. Pa.R. Crim.P. 21 provides: "Criminal proceedings" are defined as "all actions for the enforcement of the Penal Laws." Pa.R.Crim.P. 3(g). Further, Pa.R.Crim.P. 101 provides: Appellants argue that Rule 21 requires that an extra-territorial search warrant may only be issued when a criminal proceeding is already under way. In both of the instant appeals, the issuance of the search warrant was the initial step taken. As the issuance of a search warrant is not one of the four means by which to institute criminal proceedings, appellants argue that the exception in Pa.R.Crim.P. 21(a)(3) is inapplicable. As Judge Hoffman stated in his plurality opinion in Commonwealth v. Shaheen, supra, 257 Pa.Super. at 394-396, 390 A.2d at 1295-96: We agree with the preceding analysis, as any other reading would lead to a completely illogical application of Rule 21, as suggested by Judge Hoffman. Further, Pa.R.Crim.P. 25 states: Rule 25 makes perfectly clear that Rule 21 deals only with venue and not the jurisdiction of a district magistrate. It is hornbook law that objections to subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived. Yet, Rule 25 specifically states that the improper application of Rule 21 can, in fact, be waived. We thus believe that in the instant case, or cases involving similar facts, a violation of Rule 21 can lead to relief if it is shown that the magistrate used was either obtained by forum shopping or was a "rubber stamp" for the police. In neither of the instant appeals is such an allegation made. Finding nothing "provided by law" to limit the authority of a district justice to issue a search warrant anywhere within the judicial district in which he or she sits, we believe both warrants were validly issued. Orders of the Superior Court affirmed. [1] Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, § 1, 35 P.S. § 780-101 et seq. [2] "Issuing Authority is any public official having the power and authority of an alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or district justice." Pa.R.Crim.P. 3(j). [3] While Collins spoke to limitations imposed on a district justice's civil jurisdiction, we can find no viable distinction between civil and criminal jurisdiction. We thus believe the analysis employed is equally applicable to questions involving either civil or criminal jurisdiction.