Court Opinion

ID: 9369010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 17:08:43.564833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.167844
License: Public Domain

J-S39012-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DARIN LYNCH                                :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 802 MDA 2022

         Appeal From the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2022
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
             Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001954-2020

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                        FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2023

        Darin Lynch appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following

his convictions for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance

(“PWID”), possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug

paraphernalia.1 On appeal, Lynch challenges the denial of his motion to

suppress physical evidence recovered from his vehicle. In particular, Lynch

argues the search warrant was not supported by probable cause and

challenges the reliability of two confidential sources who provided information

to police about Lynch’s drug activity. We conclude the search warrant was

supported by probable cause and affirm Lynch’s judgment of sentence.

____________________________________________

1   See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), (30), (32).
J-S39012-22

       Minersville    Borough     Police   Patrolman   Jeffrey   R.   Bowers   began

investigating Lynch in September 2020, in part based on neighbors’

complaints about large volumes of traffic at Lynch’s residence on New Castle

Street in Minersville. See Motion to Suppress, 9/22/20, Exhibit A (Search

Warrant Application and Affidavit) at 5. Patrolman Bowers had personal

knowledge that Lynch had a history of trafficking narcotics from the New

Castle Street address. See id. Patrolman Bowers also received information

from three confidential sources that there is frequent traffic at Lynch’s

residence, and Lynch often exits the basement and places a backpack inside

a dark gray Chevrolet sedan with the license plate KYF-[XXXX]. See id. at 5-

6. Additionally, Patrolman Bowers and another officer conducted a trash pull

at the New Castle Street address, recovering two ledger sheets.

       Patrolman Bowers applied for two search warrants: one for Lynch’s

residence on New Castle Street and a second one for the Chevrolet sedan with

the license plate KYF-[XXXX].

       Police executed the search warrants on September 23, 2020. In the

basement of the residence, police found $445.00 in U.S. currency, business

cards,2 a digital scale, packaging materials and drug paraphernalia, Lynch’s

____________________________________________

2 The business cards read “The Grinch’s Snow and Ice Removal. No Pile Too
Big. Also The Grinch’s Green Trees Available Year Round.” The parties
stipulated that Officer Bowers would testify that Lynch’s nickname is “The
Grinch,” and that “snow” and “ice” are street names for methamphetamine.
See Stipulation of Witness Testimony at 1 (unnumbered).

                                           -2-
J-S39012-22

driver’s license and mail addressed to Lynch. See Criminal Complaint,

9/23/20, Affidavit at 2-3. From the vehicle, police recovered a cell phone and

tablet, paperwork purporting to show the sale of the vehicle to Lynch, as well

as the following items:

       Brown and red backpack containing: black CR digital scale with
       playing card funnel and baggie, blue bag containing packaging
       materials, a Morton Salt container with a false bottom containing
       one (1) bag containing crystalized substance and several glassine
       bags, seventeen (17) glassine bags containing crystalized
       substance prepackaged for sale with a total weight of
       approximately 23.3 grams, four (4) white unknown tablets,
       summons for a summary trial case and a PPL bill in the name of
       … Lynch, [] New Castle Street …, five (5) glass smoking devices,
       one (1) Magnum digital scale, one (1) orange “ledger/owe sheet”
       (located in trunk)[.]

Id.   at    3.   Field    testing    identified   the   crystalized   substance   as

methamphetamine.

       On February 9, 2021, Lynch filed a motion to suppress the physical

evidence recovered from the vehicle, arguing that the search warrant was not

supported by probable cause.3 Lynch asserted the information about the

vehicle came from two confidential sources whose reliability had not been

established. See Motion to Suppress, 2/9/21, at 3 (unnumbered). He claimed

that “based on the four corners of the warrant, it appears that [the informants]

were interviewed at the same time and with no indication that their provided

____________________________________________

3 Lynch does not specifically concede the validity of the search warrant for the
residence. However, the motion to suppress only discusses the vehicle and
identifies only the evidence found in the vehicle.

                                           -3-
J-S39012-22

statements were actually independent of one another’s.” Id. Further, Lynch

argued the police surveillance did not corroborate the information because

police merely saw him use the vehicle; they did not confirm that he used the

vehicle as a drop spot. See id. at 4 (unnumbered).

       The suppression court declined to conduct a hearing and ordered the

parties to file briefs in support of their positions. In response to Lynch, the

Commonwealth pointed out that the affidavit of probable cause for the vehicle

search included much of the same information as the affidavit for the

residence search, which Lynch did not contest. See Brief in Opposition at 2

(unnumbered). The Commonwealth also argued that Patrolman Bowers had

personal knowledge of the Minersville drug culture, including known drug

users. See id. at 2-3 (unnumbered). Lynch had prior drug convictions related

to   trafficking   methamphetamine.   See   id.   at   2   (unnumbered).   The

Commonwealth reiterated that three sources provided information about

traffic around Lynch’s home and his frequent trips to his vehicle with a

backpack. See id. at 3. The Commonwealth also stated that, contrary to

Lynch’s interpretation, none of the informants were interviewed at the same

time. See id.

       The suppression court denied Lynch’s motion to suppress. The matter

then proceeded to a stipulated bench trial, after which Lynch was convicted

for the above-mentioned crimes. The trial court sentenced Lynch to 4 to 12

months in prison, with credit for time served, and directed Lynch to pay fines,

                                      -4-
J-S39012-22

fees, and the costs of prosecution. Lynch filed a timely notice of appeal and a

court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on

appeal.

        In his appellate brief, Lynch again argues the search warrant for his

vehicle was unsupported by probable cause. Lynch asserts that the allegations

about his use of the vehicle during drug transactions came from two

confidential sources (referred to as CS #1 and CS #2 in the affidavit of

probable cause) whose credibility was not properly established. See

Appellant’s Brief at 9. Lynch apparently concedes a third confidential

informant’s reliability was established. See id. at 12. However, Lynch claims

the third source’s information did not corroborate the information provided by

CS #1 and CS #2. See id. Lynch also argues the officers surveilling the

residence did not corroborate the tips because they never witnessed him with

a backpack. See id. at 13-14. Further, Lynch contends the trash pull did not

connect the vehicle to illegal activity. See id. at 14-15.

        In reviewing a magistrate’s decision to issue a search warrant, this 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.” Commonwealth v.

Manuel, 194 A.3d 1076, 1081 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citation omitted).

        A search warrant must be supported by probable cause, and the issuing

authority may not consider any evidence outside the sworn affidavits. See

                                          -5-
J-S39012-22

Pa.R.Crim.P. 203(B); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 24 A.3d 1037, 1043 (Pa.

Super. 2011) (explaining that probable cause must exist at the time the

warrant is issued and must be based on the facts described within the four

corners of the supporting affidavit). The issuing authority must be satisfied

that “there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime or contraband will be

found in a particular location.” Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 262 A.3d

1276, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2021).

      When examining whether probable cause exists to support a search

warrant, we consider the totality of the circumstances described in the

affidavit of probable cause. See Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497,

505 (Pa. Super. 2019). The totality of the circumstances may include an

assessment of the veracity and basis of knowledge of an informant supplying

information to police. See Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040, 1048

(Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 917 A.2d 338, 341-42 (Pa. Super.

2007) (“When information essential to a finding of probable cause is garnered

from the use of confidential informants, the issuing authority determines the

reliability of the informant’s information from the facts supplied by the police

official.”). “[A]n informant’s tip may constitute probable cause 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.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 28

A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted).

                                     -6-
J-S39012-22

      Here, the suppression court concluded the information provided by CS

#1 and CS #2 adequately established a nexus between Lynch’s residence and

his vehicle. See Suppression Court Opinion, 5/17/21, at 6. The court also

concluded that the informants corroborated one another by providing similar

testimony. See id. at 5. Additionally, the suppression court concluded that

the testimony of CS #1 was bolstered by Patrolman Bowers’s confirmation of

the vehicle’s license plate number, which was registered to Lynch’s girlfriend.

See id.

      Our review confirms that, based on the totality of the circumstances,

the evidence supplied in the affidavit of probable cause demonstrated a fair

possibility that contraband would be discovered in Lynch’s vehicle. Patrolman

Bowers set forth, in relevant part, the information he received from CS #1

and CS #2 as follows:

             On 09/22/2020 [CS #1] advised your Affiant that Lynch has
      a large volume of stop and go traffic at the residence nightly. CS
      #1 advised that individuals arrive, enter the basement door of []
      New Castle Street, Minersville. CS #1 advised that the individuals
      are only there for a brief time and then emerge and depart the
      area. Based on training, knowledge and experience, your Affiant
      knows that this type of behavior is indicative of narcotics
      trafficking. CS #1 advised that Lynch is utilizing a dark gray
      Chevrolet sedan bearing PA registration of KYF-[XXXX]. CS #1
      advised that Lynch regularly exits the basement of [] New Castle
      Street and places a backpack in the aforementioned Chevrolet
      sedan and leaves.

            On 09/22/2020 [CS #2] advised your Affiant that Lynch has
      a large volume of stop and go traffic at the residence nightly. CS
      #2 advised that individuals arrive, enter the basement door of []
      New Castle Street, Minersville. CS #2 advised that the individuals
      are only there for a brief time and then emerge and depart the

                                     -7-
J-S39012-22

      area. Based on training, knowledge and experience, your Affiant
      knows that this type of behavior is indicative of narcotics
      trafficking. CS #2 provided your Affiant with a list of individuals
      they recognized coming and going from [] New Castle Street,
      Minersville, Pa. Your Affiant has personal knowledge that
      individuals identified by CS #2 are known drug users and part of
      the drug culture of Minersville Borough and surrounding areas. CS
      #2 also advised that Lynch regularly exits his residence and places
      a backpack inside the aforementioned Chevrolet sedan. A short
      time later, the aforementioned drug users arrive, remove said
      backpack and leave the area only to return a short time later
      placing the backpack inside the Chevrolet sedan. Once the
      backpack is returned, Lynch then emerges from the basement,
      retrieves the backpack and enters his basement. Your Affiant
      avers that Lynch is utilizing the backpack as a drop spot for drug
      transactions with users.

Motion to Suppress, 9/22/20, Exhibit A (Search Warrant Application and

Affidavit) at 5-6. Additionally, Patrolman Bowers attested that a check of the

Chevrolet sedan’s registration indicates that it is owned by a known drug user

in the area. See id. at 6. Patrolman Bowers stated that during his surveillance,

the vehicle was often parked at the residence and Lynch was using it regularly

as his own. See id.

      While affidavits relying on information obtained through confidential

informants often include at least a cursory statement that the informant had

previously provided information that resulted in arrests or convictions, such

statements are not strictly required. See Dukeman, 917 A.2d at 342. The

absence of a reference to an informant’s credibility does not require

suppression of evidence so long as “the affidavit provides probable cause to

support the warrant independent of the questionable source.” Id. (citation

omitted).

                                     -8-
J-S39012-22

      “[T]he    reliability   of   an     informant   may   be     established    by   the

corroboration    of    another     source,    such    as   an    additional   informant.”

Commonwealth v. Singleton, 603 A.2d 1072, 1074 (Pa. Super. 1992)

(citation omitted).

      [W]hen two independent informants both supply the same
      information about a particular crime to the police, each source
      tends inherently to bolster the reliability of the other. Although
      the information supplied by one questionable source may be
      insufficient, the probability is extremely small that a second
      independent source would supply identical information if it were
      not probably accurate.

Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

      CS #1 and CS #2 each provided Patrolman Bowers with similar

information about the frequent traffic at Lynch’s home. Both sources explained

that individuals would enter the basement and exit a short time later. CS #1

and CS #2 also both identified Lynch’s use of a dark gray Chevrolet sedan

with license plate KYF-[XXXX], in which Lynch often deposited a backpack. CS

#2 provided the additional detail that after a drug user took the backpack and

later returned it, Lynch would retrieve the backpack from the car and return

to the basement. Based on CS #2’s reported observations, Patrolman Bowers

was also able to confirm the identities of several known drug users frequenting

the   residence.      Because      both    sources    provided    substantially   similar

information, their respective information bolstered the reliability of one

another. See Singleton, 603 A.2d at 1074; see also Dukeman, 917 A.2d at

342 (concluding that information provided by two informants established

                                            -9-
J-S39012-22

probable cause, even where one had never before provided information to

police, because they provided independent confirmation of the alleged facts).

     Under the totality of the circumstances, the facts alleged in the affidavit

of probable cause established a reasonable probability that Lynch used the

vehicle in connection with his drug trafficking business and that contraband

would be discovered in the vehicle. Therefore, the search warrant for Lynch’s

vehicle was supported by probable cause, and the suppression court did not

err by denying Lynch’s motion to suppress.

     Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/07/2023

                                    - 10 -