Court Opinion

ID: 9951636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-18 16:11:18.846907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:51.048314
License: Public Domain

J-A03019-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  FREDERICK R. CAMEJO                          :   No. 818 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered June 15, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-42-CR-0000412-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                         FILED: MARCH 18, 2024

       The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting Frederick Camejo’s

motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand.1

       On May 29, 2022, Bradford City Police Officer Joshua Frederoski

obtained a warrant to search Camejo’s house, located at 166 Congress Street

in Bradford. The attached affidavit provided that Camejo told police that he

shot the deceased, known as “Bo,” outside his house. It also stated:

       all of the above incident could be located and observed from
       [Camejo’s] in home surveillance system located at 166 Congress
       St. . . . CAMEJO stated he was the individual who shot “Bo” with
       a gun and that the whole thing would be found on his surveillance
       cameras inside the 166 Congress St. residence.

Search Warrant, 5/29/22, at 3–4.

____________________________________________

1 The Commonwealth separately appealed from an earlier suppression order,

docketed in this Court at 561 WDA 2023. Contemporaneously with this
decision, we quash the appeal from the earlier order.
J-A03019-24

       The warrant authorized police to search for and seize, among other

items:

       electronic devices (home surveillance cameras/footage, modem/
       router storage device (s) cellphone(s) and or associated with the
       phone numbers of 814-558-1396 and 814-596-6995 and or
       audio/video recordings at the residence that could have captured
       evidence of the crime associated with this incident.

Search Warrant, 5/29/22, at 6 (verbatim).

       Later that morning, Chief McKean County Detective Ryan Yingling joined

Bradford City Police Sergeant Jason Daugherty to execute the warrant.

Camejo’s wife Antrika Camejo led the officers upstairs, where she plugged in

an electronic device and showed them the footage of the shooting.            Police

seized, among other items, Camejo’s cell phone (which had a different number

than those listed in the warrant).             The suppression court made extensive

factual findings about the execution of the warrant, largely corroborated by

video from Sergeant Daugherty’s body camera:

              Detective Yingling initially met with Bradford City Police
       officers, including Sgt. Jason Daugherty, on the street in front of
       the home where the shooting had taken place. He testified that
       he was “briefed.” He was apprised that a search warrant had been
       obtained to search the residence. He did not read the warrant but
       “Daugherty talked about the surveillance system.” He was aware
       that there was a security system at the home that captured video
       footage of the shooting.       Further, he had “discussed (with
       Daugherty) what we were looking for, looking for cellphone.”[2]

____________________________________________

2 The suppression court relied on its own notes from the hearing held May 2,

2023. In the certified notes of testimony, it does not appear that Detective
Yingling said that he had not read the warrant or that Sergeant Daugherty
told him that they were looking for a cell phone. See N.T., 5/2/23, at 7
(explaining Detective Yingling’s focus on cameras and ammunition).

                                           -2-
J-A03019-24

           After the discussion with Sgt. Daughtery and other officers
     in front of the home, Detective Yingling and Sgt. Daugherty
     walked to a back door of the home. Detective Yingling knew that
     Sgt. Daugherty had the warrant and was going to the home to
     execute it. Sergeant Daugherty’s body camera was running and
     captured video and audio of what occurred. The Commonwealth
     played a portion of the video that showed: Detective Yingling
     being at the scene, in front of [Camejo’s] residence; Detective
     Yingling and Sergeant Daugherty walking to the back door of the
     home and knocking on a door; [Camejo’s] wife opening the door
     and allowing them to enter; what occurred after they entered;
     and, a portion of what occurred after they exited the home.

            After they knocked on the back door of the residence[,
     Camejo’s] wife, Antrika Camejo, opened the door. Sergeant
     Daugherty asked Mrs. Camejo if they could enter and she
     indicated that they could. Sergeant Daugherty indicated, with
     Detective Yingling standing right beside him, that “we have a
     search warrant” and that “we are looking for anything that has to
     do with what happened.” Detective Yingling indicated that the
     officers had been advised “it was self-defense.” The conversation
     between the officers and Mrs. Camejo was cordial and non-
     threatening. At one[ ]point Mrs. Camejo indicated that someone
     had been yelling to her, after the shooting, not to talk to the
     police. She explained that she was willing to talk to the police.
     The officers did not threaten her or push her to provide
     information. Often Mrs. Camejo provided information to the
     officers without any questions from them. It was clear from the
     video evidence presented that Mrs. Camejo wanted to, and
     willingly did, provide information to the officers.

            Mrs. Camejo explained that the victim and additional
     individuals had come to her home and that she was “making
     chicken.” As the group was conversing the victim, who she
     referred to as “that guy,” told her “you are a Ho.” Her husband
     told her after the shooting that “that guy flashed a gun.” Mrs.
     Camejo explained that “that guy” would not leave and her
     husband told her “go get a gun[,” and] she responded “no, we
     aren’t getting into that.” The individuals that were with the victim
     then “had him go.” Her husband then went upstairs, and she
     stayed downstairs. She then “heard 3 shots” and she “grabbed
     my gun and called 911.”

         During this conversation Detective Yingling asked Mrs.
     Camejo about the camera system for the home. He asked about

                                    -3-
J-A03019-24

     the camera system shortly after Sergeant Daugherty indicated
     that they had a search warrant; and, he asked about it
     immediately after Mrs. Camejo indicated that she had heard the 3
     shots, stating: “when was the last time the cameras were on?”
     Mrs. Camejo responded: “I don’t know if the cameras were still
     recording.” Sergeant Daugherty then asked if they could view the
     footage of the incident. Mrs. Camejo then, without hesitation and
     in a manner that conveyed that she wanted the officers to see the
     footage, took the officers to the second floor to a room and area
     by a fish tank. She explained that there had been [a different,
     unrelated] incident the prior day . . . and her husband had tried
     to reset the electronic device attached to the cameras, which was
     referred to as “the box,” the day prior when he had attempted to
     view video footage from it. She stated that “he unplugged it
     yesterday.”     She picked up “the box” which had several
     intertwined cables coming out and around it. She attempted to
     plug cables into it and into a tv screen above “the box.” She
     stated: “it records to this (“the box”) and you can access this from
     this and my cellphone.” For several minutes Mrs. Camejo, while
     talking to the officers, attempted to untangle and plug cords into
     “the box” and the tv screen. Detective Yingling then assisted her
     in plugging in cords, and, stated something regarding “the power
     cord.” [The security system logo then appeared on the screen,
     and Mrs. Camejo stated what she thought the password was.]
     She then attempted, several times, to enter a password to open
     the camera system. In response to questions from the officers,
     she indicated: “yeah, he had to login on my phone.”

            After several attempts, Mrs. Camejo entered the correct
     password[,] and images from different cameras appeared on the
     tv screen. At the time that she was opening the images to view
     captured footage of the incident, including what had occurred prior
     to and during the shooting, Mrs. Camejo had a cellphone in her
     hand, which rang several times. She then played footage and
     stated: “this is when the incident first happened.” On the tv
     screen footage of individuals leaving the front door of the
     residence can be seen. While this image was being played,
     Detective Yingling stated to Mrs. Camejo: “you understand that
     you are not under arrest and you are not in custody.” Mrs. Camejo
     then explained that someone had started yelling to her when the
     police first arrived: “not to talk to them and to get a lawyer.” She
     explained that: “I do not feel my husband is in the wrong.” It was
     clear from this exchange that Mrs. Camejo was willingly talking to
     Detective Yingling and Sergeant Daugherty and she was willingly

                                    -4-
J-A03019-24

      showing them the captured video footage and how to gain access
      to it.

            Immediately after she told the officers that “I do not feel my
      husband was in the wrong,” and while the footage was on the tv
      screen, she explained that: “no one else has access (to the
      cameras and captured footage). Just me and my husband.”
      Detective Yingling then indic[a]ted to her: “just the box, his phone
      and your phone.” Footage of when the cellphones were actually
      taken was not played at the hearing.

            The Commonwealth also played a brief portion of the
      footage from Sergeant Daugherty’s body cam that depicted what
      occurred after Sergeant Daugherty and Detective Yingling left
      [Camejo’s] residence. Detective Yingling is holding a cellphone
      and is explaining to Bradford City police officers to “keep them
      powered up” and to “place them on airplane mode.” At one point
      you can see that Sergeant Daugherty is holding either the search
      warrant for the home or the Inventory List for the search.

            In his testimony Detective Yingling explained that, when
      speaking with Mrs. Camejo, he wanted to find out how to gain
      access to the video footage and to assure that the footage could
      be preserved and not deleted or altered by any of the parties.
      Therefore, he had asked her who had access to the footage and
      how it could be viewed. When she explained that access could be
      obtained using “the box,” [Camejo’s] phone and her phone, he
      believed it was critical to obtain all 3 of them so that the footage
      could not be deleted or altered. He asserted that “she (Mrs.
      Camejo) voluntarily gave me the phones” after he had told her
      that they needed to preserve the footage.

Opinion, 6/15/23, at 2–6 (footnote omitted).

      Officer Frederoski later obtained a second warrant, authorizing police to

search the contents of both cell phones.

      On June 14, 2022, Camejo was charged with homicide and related

crimes.   He moved to suppress the seizure of his cell phone because the

affidavit in the first warrant did not provide probable cause that evidence of a

crime would be found on the phone. The suppression court held a hearing on

                                     -5-
J-A03019-24

March 29, 2023. The court limited the Commonwealth to presenting evidence

within the four corners of the first search warrant.     On April 4, 2023, the

suppression court entered an opinion, concluding that the warrant did not

authorize police to seize the phone:

      There is no mention in the Affidavit of a cellphone being used by
      [Camejo], to communicate with the victim or otherwise. The only
      mention of it is where the [affiant] sets forth the items that they
      intend to search for and seize. . . .

      The mere assertion that cellphones commonly contain evidence of
      crimes is not enough without other specific information
      demonstrating that there is likely evidence of a crime on the
      [specific phone sought]. . . .

      [T]here is nothing in the warrant that indicates that the video
      surveillance images were captured on, or accessible from,
      [Camejo’s] cellphone. The Commonwealth asserts that it is
      common knowledge. However, that common knowledge should
      still have been placed in the Affidavit. We are limited when
      reviewing whether probable cause exists for the grant of a warrant
      to what is specifically set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause.

Opinion, 4/4/23, at 9.

      The Commonwealth moved to reconsider and reopen the record, giving

notice that it intended to present evidence of alternative justifications for the

seizure.   The suppression court denied reconsideration but granted the

Commonwealth’s request for a further hearing, scheduled for May 2, 2023. At

the hearing, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Detective Yingling

and entered the body camera footage from Sergeant Daugherty into evidence.

      On June 15, 2023, the suppression court granted Camejo’s motion to

suppress. It ruled that neither of the Commonwealth’s alternative theories

justified the seizure of the cell phone: there were no exigent circumstances,

                                       -6-
J-A03019-24

and Detective Yingling was not an “independent source” from the Bradford

City officers. Opinion, 6/15/23, at 13–18.

       The Commonwealth timely appealed, certifying that the June 15, 2023,

order “terminates or substantially handicaps the              prosecution.”     The

Commonwealth and the suppression court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure 1925.

       We turn to the merits of the suppression court’s opinion and order

granting Camejo’s motion.3         The scope of our review in this appeal is limited

to any evidence from the defendant’s witnesses and any prosecution evidence

that remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. Mercado, 205 A.3d 368,

371 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). We are bound by the suppression

court’s factual findings if they are supported by the record. Id. However, our

review of the suppression court’s legal conclusions is de novo. Id.

       We begin with the ruling that the affidavit attached to the first warrant

did not provide probable cause to seize Camejo’s cell phone.4 Probable cause

is “a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances

____________________________________________

3 The Commonwealth also challenges the suppression court’s decision to
bifurcate the hearing and to require the Commonwealth to raise its alternative
justifications for seizure in a separate filing. Because the Commonwealth has
not requested relief from these procedural issues, we decline to provide an
advisory opinion on them. See Commonwealth v. T.J.W., 114 A.3d 1098,
1102 (Pa. Super. 2015) (declining to address an issue “if in ruling on it the
Court cannot enter an order that has any legal force or effect”).
4 We may review this ruling because it contributed to the order from which

the Commonwealth now appeals. Commonwealth v. Fulmore, 25 A.3d 340,
345 (Pa. Super. 2011).

                                           -7-
J-A03019-24

set forth in the affidavit[,] there is a fair probability that contraband or

evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Commonwealth v.

Green, 265 A.3d 541, 551 (Pa. 2021) (citation omitted). A reviewing court

determines whether there was a “substantial basis” for the issuing authority

to conclude that probable cause existed. Commonwealth v. Batista, 219

A.3d 1199, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,

238–39 (1983)). In doing so, the court limits its review to “the information

within the four corners of the affidavit.” Id.; see Pa.R.Crim.P. 203(D).

      A warrant can only authorize the police to seize items for which probable

cause exists; otherwise, the warrant is unconstitutionally overbroad. Green,

265 A.3d at 549–50.      To assess overbreadth, a court must measure the

warrant’s description of the items to be seized against the items for which

there is probable cause to search.       Id. at 550.     The Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania has explained:

      Any unreasonable discrepancy between the items for which there
      was probable cause to search and the description in the warrant
      requires suppression.     This is because an unreasonable
      discrepancy reveals that the description was not as specific as
      reasonably possible, meaning the warrant is overbroad,
      ambiguous, or perhaps both.

             At the same time, we have also recognized the fact-
      dependent nature of such claims, and cautioned that search
      warrants should be read in a common sense fashion and should
      not be invalidated by hypertechnical interpretations. This may
      mean, for instance, that when an exact description of a particular
      item is not possible, a generic description will suffice. In that vein,
      we have held that where the items to be seized are as precisely
      identified as the nature of the activity permits and an exact
      description is virtually impossible, the searching officer is only
      required to describe the general class of the item he is seeking.

                                       -8-
J-A03019-24

Id. at 550 (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

      Green provides an example of a warrant that withstood an overbreadth

challenge. There, the affidavit established probable cause to believe that a

computer user at a suspect’s home was sharing child pornography on a certain

network, and the warrant authorized police to seize every digital device in the

home that could access the Internet. Id. at 551–52. Testimony from the

suppression hearing established that prior to the search, police could not

determine which device in the home had been used to share the pornography.

Id. at 552. The expansive scope of the items authorized to be seized did not

render the warrant overbroad: “Based on the information available to the

corporals at the time they requested the warrant, the pornography could have

been shared by any user on any device using the internet in the home. There

was no way to narrow this inquiry without conducting a search.” Id.

      Here, the affidavit attached to the first search warrant established

probable cause to believe that evidence of the shooting would be found on the

surveillance system. Camejo said as much. Search Warrant, 5/29/22, at 3–

4. We thus assess whether there is an “unreasonable discrepancy” between

the items for which there was probable cause—the surveillance system—and

the description of what the police could seize. Green, 265 A.3d at 550.

      Notably, the suppression court’s factual findings illustrate that when

police executed the search warrant, they still had to determine what

components made up the surveillance system. See Opinion, 6/15/23, at 4–

6. Detective Yingling explained that in speaking with Mrs. Camejo, he learned

                                     -9-
J-A03019-24

that there were “three ways to access the system”—the box in the room and

the two phones, which he seized. N.T., 5/2/23, at 17–18.

       We find no unreasonable discrepancy. As in Green, the police could not

know before the search which electronic devices would contain evidence of a

crime. Therefore, under the circumstances, the first search warrant described

the object of the search as precisely as possible. While executing the warrant,

Detective Yingling and Sergeant Daugherty questioned Mrs. Camejo to find

out what devices could access the surveillance system. These are the devices

that the warrant, through Camejo’s statements, established probable cause

to seize.5

       This reasoning agrees with the suppression court’s observation that

“nothing in the warrant . . . indicates that the video surveillance images were

captured on, or accessible from,” Camejo’s phone. Opinion, 4/4/23, at 9. It

is precisely because the police did not know how the surveillance system was

configured that Officer Frederoski would not have included this assertion. And

because the police did not know beforehand which electronic devices could

access the surveillance footage, the description was as precise as possible.

       In conclusion, the first search warrant provided probable cause to seize

the surveillance system, and police seized Camejo’s phone because it was part

of that system. Because the warrant justified the seizure of the phone, we

____________________________________________

5 The seized phone having a different number than the two numbers listed on

the warrant shows that the police took it because it was a component of the
surveillance system, not because it was one of the phones that was also listed.

                                          - 10 -
J-A03019-24

reverse the order granting suppression. We note that the suppression court

ruled only on whether the seizure of Camejo’s phone was justified; the court

did not address whether the second warrant, to search the contents of the

phone, was supported by probable cause. Opinion, 4/4/23, at 1; see Omnibus

Pre-Trial Motion, 12/16/22, at 6–7. We express no opinion on this distinct

issue.

         Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

FILED: 3/18/2024

                                     - 11 -