Court Opinion

ID: 9898607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 20:10:55.427895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:18.061455
License: Public Domain

J-A17018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BRENDA YAMILET PALACIOS                      :   No. 2047 EDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Order Entered July 21, 2022
                 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
              Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003267-2021

BEFORE:      KING, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                         FILED NOVEMBER 14, 2023

       The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting the suppression

motion of Brenda Yamilet Palacios (“Yamilet Palacios”). Following our careful

review, we affirm.

       The relevant factual and procedural history of this case is as follows:

The Commonwealth charged Yamilet Palacios with possession with intent to

deliver a controlled substance, simple possession, and possession of

paraphernalia.1      See Information, 11/12/21.      The charges resulted from a

search warrant issued pursuant to a police investigation involving a

shooting/homicide.       Yamilet Palacios moved for suppression, arguing the

search warrant lacked probable cause and failed to establish the requisite

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), (a)(16), (a)(32).
J-A17018-23

nexus between the evidence sought and her home. See, e.g., Brief in Support

of Motion to Suppress, 6/9/22, unnumbered at *2.       The trial court held a

suppression hearing, and the court admitted the search warrant into evidence.

See N.T., 4/26/22, at 6.

      The affidavit of probable cause for the warrant specified the following:

On August 21, 2021, at 8:23 p.m., Allentown Police Department officers were

dispatched to 12th and Linden Streets for reports of a shooting. See Affidavit

of Probable Cause, 8/25/21, at ¶ 2. On arrival, officers found a male lying on

the sidewalk, next to a yellow ATV, suffering a gunshot wound to the right

side of his head. See id. at ¶ 3. The victim was identified as Roniel Orlando

Santos-Rivera (“Santos-Rivera”).     The affiant, Detective Yamil Castillo,

obtained surveillance footage from several cameras in the vicinity of the

shooting. See id. at ¶ 5.

      Surveillance footage revealed the following: Santos-Rivera arrived at a

Pacemart, located at 640 N. 7th Street, riding the yellow ATV, at about 7:56

p.m. See id. at ¶ 6. Several others arrived around that time, including a

white BMW with a damaged front bumper. See id. at ¶¶ 7, 18. A female was

driving the BMW, a black male was in the front passenger seat, and there was

a passenger in the back. See id. Both the driver and front passenger of the

BMW exited the vehicle at the Pacemart. See id. at ¶ 8. Detective Samson

Wega was able to identify the front passenger as Taijon Edwards (“Edwards”)

                                    -2-
J-A17018-23

and the driver as his girlfriend, Yamilet Palacios, based on the detective’s prior

unrelated contact with Edwards. See id. at ¶ 9.2 Detective Castillo observed

that the surveillance footage showed Santos-Rivera (on the ATV) and the BMW

leave the Pacemart and travel south on 7th Street. See id. at ¶ 10.

       Surveillance footage also depicted the ATV and BMW travelling south to

Linden Street, then west on Linden Street, after which Detective Castillo

observed someone lean outside of the front passenger window of the BMW in

the 1000 block of Linden Street. See id. at ¶ 14. Police later located a shell

casing at the 1000 block of Linden Street. See id. at ¶ 16. Four spent shell

casings were later found in the 1100 block of Linden Street, consistent with

the path of travel of the BMW, as seen on surveillance, and which matched

the casing from the 1000 block of Linden Street. See id. at ¶¶ 15-16. The

surveillance footage showed Santos-Rivera continuing to travel down the 1000

and 1100 blocks of Linden Street before crashing the ATV into a residence at

the corner of 12th and Linden Streets. See id. at ¶ 17. Santos-Rivera, when

found, was suffering from a gunshot wound to the right side of his head. See

id. at ¶ 3.

       As part of their investigation, officers obtained the license plate number

for the BMW using a license plate reader and were also able to identify the

____________________________________________

2 Detective Wega also, through his own investigation, learned that the person

the BMW was registered to, Shaquille Alexander Robinson, had made phone
calls and money deposits to Edwards while Edwards was incarcerated. See
Affidavit of Probable Cause, 8/25/21, at ¶¶ 11-12.

                                           -3-
J-A17018-23

BMW by the damage to its front bumper.      See id. at ¶¶ 11, 18. Officers

observed the vehicle parked, around 6:00 a.m. the following morning, at the

900 block of Gordon Street, which is around the corner from the address

where Yamilet Palacio and Edwards lived, on North 9th Street. See id. at ¶¶

18-20.

     Based on the foregoing investigation, Detective Castillo applied for a

search warrant three days later for Yamilet Palacios and Edwards’s residence

to search for evidence related to Santos-Rivera’s shooting. See id. at ¶ 23.

Police executed the warrant, after which Yamilet Palacios was charged with

the various drug offenses.

     Upon consideration of Yamilet Palacios’s suppression motion and the

hearing, the court determined that the search warrant lacked probable cause

and granted suppression. See Order, 7/21/22. The Commonwealth timely

appealed and certified that the suppression order would terminate or

substantially handicap the prosecution. See Notice of Appeal, 8/12/22 (citing

Pa.R.A.P. 311(d)).   Both the Commonwealth and the suppression court

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

     The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review:

         Did the lower court err when it granted [Yamilet Palacios’s]
         [m]otion to [s]uppress where there was a substantial basis for
         the issuing authority to determine that probable cause existed
         to issue a search warrant for [Yamilet Palacios’s] North 9th
         Street [address ?]

Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.

                                    -4-
J-A17018-23

      Our standard of review for an order granting a suppression motion is as

follows:

            Our review is limited to determining whether the record
      supports the findings of fact of the suppression court and whether
      the legal conclusions drawn from those findings are correct. We
      are bound by the factual findings of the suppression court, which
      are supported by the record, but we are not bound by the
      suppression court’s legal rulings, which we review de novo.

Commonwealth v. Mendoza, 287 A.3d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal

citation omitted).

      The Commonwealth maintains the suppression court erred in concluding

the search warrant lacked probable cause.       Regarding the probable cause

requirement for search warrants, our Supreme Court has explained:

      The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
      commands that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
      persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
      searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
      issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
      and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
      persons or things to be seized.” . . . Similarly, Article I, Section
      8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that “[t]he people
      shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions
      from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to
      search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue
      without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without
      probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by
      the affiant.”

Commonwealth v. Jacoby, 170 A.3d 1065, 1081 (Pa. 2017).

      The following law applies to the issuing authority’s determination of

whether an affidavit contains sufficient probable cause:

            It is well-established that a magistrate may not consider any
      evidence outside of the affidavit to determine whether probable

                                     -5-
J-A17018-23

      cause exists to support a search warrant. [B]efore an issuing
      authority may issue a constitutionally valid search warrant, he or
      she must be furnished with information sufficient to persuade a
      reasonable person that probable cause exists to conduct a
      search. . .. [S]uch information must be viewed in a common
      sense, nontechnical, ungrudging and positive manner . . ..

             The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a
      practical common-sense decision whether, given all the
      circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the
      veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay
      information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence
      of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Mendoza, 287 A.3d at 462 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets

omitted).

      A reviewing court is not to conduct a de novo review of the issuing

authority’s probable cause determination; instead:

      [It] is simply to determine whether or not there is substantial
      evidence in the record supporting the decision to issue a
      warrant. . ..  In so doing, the reviewing 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.

             Thus, although reasonable minds frequently may differ on
      the question whether a particular affidavit establishes probable
      cause, the deference afforded a magistrate judge ensures that, if
      a substantial basis exists to support the magistrate’s probable
      cause finding, the [suppression] court must uphold that finding
      even if a different magistrate judge might have found the affidavit
      insufficient to support a warrant.

Id. at 463 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted; some ellipses

in original).

      An affidavit of probable cause must “establish a ‘substantial nexus’

between the suspect’s home and the criminal activity or contraband sought to

                                     -6-
J-A17018-23

permit the search of the home.” Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 262 A.3d

1276, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2021) (internal citation omitted). Probable cause “to

believe that [an individual] has committed a crime does not necessarily give

rise to probable cause to search his [or her] home.” Id. Indeed, the “affidavit

of probable cause must establish a ‘substantial nexus’ between the suspect’s

home and the criminal activity . . . to permit the search of the home. The

task of the reviewing court is to ensure that the issuing authority had a

substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed.”       Id. (internal

citations omitted).   In determining whether there is a “substantial nexus”

between a suspect’s home and the criminal activity at issue, our Supreme

Court has prohibited the use of “categorical assumptions” about where

suspects are likely to store contraband; as our High Court has explained:

      There is nothing even to suggest that similar people within the
      same general category would respond to a set of circumstances in
      the same way. Probable cause to search [a suspect’s] home
      must be evaluated based upon the circumstances of his
      case, his behavior, and any nexus to the location to be
      searched, but not upon categorical assumptions.             Our
      Constitutions prohibit such categorical conclusions, as well as
      those searches that are based upon such conclusions.

Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1085 (emphasis added).           Instead, “there must be

something in the affidavit that links the place to be searched directly to the

criminal activity.” Nicholson, 262 A.3d at 1282.

      Here, the Commonwealth maintains the suppression court erred in

granting   Yamilet    Palacios’s   suppression   motion.     Specifically,   the

Commonwealth argues “the lower court failed to give proper deference to the

                                      -7-
J-A17018-23

issuing authority’s . . . probable cause determination, myopically re-evaluated

the averments in the search warrant, and held the Commonwealth to a

standard higher than whether or not there was a ‘fair probability [’] [evidence

from] the shooting a mere three days prior” would be found in the residence.

Commonwealth’s Brief at 10. The Commonwealth asserts that “the evidence

sought here – guns, clothing, and cell phones – are not by their nature easily

exchanged, sold, consumed, or otherwise disposed of.”         Id. at 12.     The

Commonwealth also notes that Yamilet Palacios would have been unaware

that surveillance footage captured her or that she was a suspect, which

decreases the likelihood that she would have disposed of the contraband. See

id. at 14-15.

      The suppression court considered the Commonwealth’s argument and

determined the Commonwealth was due no relief:

            Initially, the Commonwealth has failed to establish a
      “substantial nexus” between the home of [Yamilet Palacios] and
      the criminal activity. . .. [See] Nicholson, 262 A.3d [at] 1280[;
      see also] Jacoby, 170 A.3d [at] 1084-85 [] (probable cause to
      search a residence for a murder weapon does not exist in the
      absence of a nexus to the residence).

             This is not an investigation in which “hot pursuit” led the
      police to [Yamilet Palacios’s] residence. No evidence exists that
      [Yamilet Palacios] or Edwards were even seen at the 9th Street
      apartment after the shooting. The best that the affidavit provides
      is that the BM[W] . . ., which was not registered to either [Yamilet
      Palacios] or Edwards, was seen “in a close proximity (around the
      corner)” to the premises to be searched the next morning.
      Additionally, the search warrant was not executed until August 25,
      2021, almost four . . . days after the shooting. . ..

                                     -8-
J-A17018-23

            This is not to say that the information in the possession of
      the police would generally be considered stale. However, in order
      to support a finding of probable cause, it must be shown that
      criminal activity at some prior time continued up to or about the
      time the search warrant was issued. . .. Here, the shooting was
      an isolated incident “pinpointed in time,” and not a continuing
      course of events. . ..

                                    ****

             . . . In this case, if categorical assumptions are rejected,
      i.e., how long someone would keep a firearm in their home after
      participating in a shooting, then the factor that presents itself as
      the Commonwealth’s biggest obstacle to establishing probable
      cause is the nexus to the place to be searched. There must be
      something in the affidavit that links [Yamilet Palacios’s] residence
      directly to the criminal activity or contraband. More is required
      than merely asserting because [Yamilet Palacios] resides with . . .
      Edwards at the 9th Street address, probable cause exists to
      believe that firearms and the other items to be searched for and
      seized would be located at that address. Probable cause, not
      suspicion, is required.

Suppression Court Opinion, 9/2/22, at 6-8 (footnotes omitted).

      Following our review, we conclude that the record supports the court’s

factual findings, and its application of those facts to the current law. We note

that Yamilet Palacios and Edwards were captured on surveillance footage

riding in the white BMW near Santos-Rivera when he was shot. Someone was

seen leaning out of the front passenger side window of the BMW in the area

where Santos-Rivera was shot. A casing was found at that location, which

matched other casings found down the road in the direction the white BMW

was traveling. Yamilet Palacios and Edwards were identified by a detective as

the driver and front passenger, respectively, of the BMW. Yamilet Palacios

and Edwards shared the same address, namely the 9th street address listed

                                     -9-
J-A17018-23

on the warrant.      However, police did not observe the BMW parked in the

vicinity of Yamilet Palacios’s residence shortly after the shooting or present

any evidence that other eyewitnesses did; rather, police only observed the

vehicle parked around the corner from the residence approximately nine

hours after the shooting. See Affidavit of Probable Cause, 8/25/21, at ¶¶ 2,

18.   It was unknown (at least in terms of the affidavit of probable cause)

where the BMW may have gone in the interim; and, further, the search

warrant was not executed until three days after the police saw the BMW

around the corner from Yamilet Palacios’s residence.

       If the Commonwealth’s categorical assumption about whether, how

long, and where a suspect will retain firearms and clothing is rejected, as our

Supreme Court has directed per Jacoby, then the evidence within the four

corners of the affidavit failed to establish a “substantial nexus” between the

shooting and residence. See Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1085 (rejecting the trial

court’s “categorical assumption” that people “generally hold on to guns . . .

and that, as such, probable cause to search for guns exists in apparent

perpetuity” in support of its finding that probable cause existed to search a

defendant’s residence for a firearm fifteen months after the commission of a

crime).3    Instead, consistent with Nicholson and Jacoby, the fact that a

____________________________________________

3 We are mindful of the Commonwealth’s argument that in Commonwealth

v. Janda, this Court upheld a search warrant and affirmed a probable cause
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-A17018-23

suspect uses a vehicle during the commission of a crime may give rise to

probable cause to search the vehicle; but the fact that a suspect thereafter at

some point uses that vehicle to return home does not, without more,4 give

rise   to   probable    cause    to   search   the   residence, absent any other

demonstration of a “substantial nexus” between the criminal activity and the

residence, such as, for example, evidence that the suspect returned “directly”

home after the criminal activity. See Nicholson, 262 A.3d at 1281. For these

reasons, we cannot say the suppression court committed an error of law in

____________________________________________

determination where police obtained a search warrant seven months later for
a suspect’s residence to search for footwear the suspect had worn during a
burglary, and concluded, in part, and apparently utilizing a categorical
assumption, that “shoes, unlike drugs, are not an item commonly disposed of
soon after they come into their owner's possession,” and, therefore, there was
a fair probability they would be found in the suspect’s residence. 14 A.3d 147,
159 (Pa. Super. 2011). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, this
Court, again in reliance on categorical assumptions, upheld an order denying
suppression of the fruits of the search of a robbery suspect’s home, and
concluded that “the items seized, a shirt and a gun, were each of a type
reasonably likely to be found in the perpetrator’s home, especially given the
short period of time [unspecified] between the commission of the crimes and
the application for the search warrant.” 434 A.2d 740, 743 (Pa. Super. 1981).
Jacoby’s prohibition on categorical assumptions casts doubt on the continuing
viability of these holdings. Contra Commonwealth’s Brief at 13-16 (arguing
for application of Janda and Hutchinson).

4 We emphasize that probable cause determinations       are fact-intensive, and
each case stands on its own specific fact pattern. See, e.g., Commonwealth
v. Smith, 979 A.2d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2009) (observing that the “question
whether probable cause exists in a given circumstance is so fact-intensive that
well-settled legal principles in themselves offer cold comfort”) (internal
citation and quotations omitted).

                                          - 11 -
J-A17018-23

granting Yamilet Palacios’s suppression motion and, therefore, affirm the

order granting suppression.

     Order affirmed.

Date: 11/14/2023

                                 - 12 -