Court Opinion

ID: 9943493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 17:11:00.474136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:04.307624
License: Public Domain

J-S44009-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  THE GURU NANAK SIKH SOCIETY OF               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  LEHIGH VALLEY, INC.                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1266 EDA 2023
  NORTHAMPTON COUNTY DISTRICT                  :
  ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE                    :
  COLONIAL REGIONAL POLICE                     :
  DEPARTMENT                                   :

                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

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).

                                           -2-
J-S44009-23

        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)

                                     -3-
J-S44009-23

          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)

                                  -4-
J-S44009-23

          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 --

                                   -5-
J-S44009-23

          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.

                                  -6-
J-S44009-23

          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,

                                    -7-
J-S44009-23

              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:

                                      -8-
J-S44009-23

         [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).

                                           -9-
J-S44009-23

       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.

                                          - 10 -
J-S44009-23

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.

                                     - 11 -
J-S44009-23

Date: 2/23/2024

                  - 12 -