Court Opinion

ID: 9754098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:43:20.977359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:48.399478
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
JOYCE, J.:
¶ 1 I wholeheartedly join Judge Stevens’ Dissenting Opinion. I write separately, however, to express additional reasons for my disagreement with the position espoused in the Majority’s Opinion.
*572¶ 2 In the Majority’s Opinion, my esteemed colleagues conclude that the strict limitations placed upon the applicability of the independent source doctrine in Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996), do not apply in the instant case because the police only committed a “technical violation” (ie. the failure to aver the credibility of a witness in a warrant application), not an “egregious constitutional affront” (i.e. an illegal home invasion). The Majority asserts that, in those instances where the police commit a technical or good faith violation, we need only consider whether the police actually benefited from the illegality and cite our Supreme Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 533 Pa. 167, 620 A.2d 1115 (1993) and Commonwealth v. Mason, 535 Pa. 560, 637 A.2d 251 (1993) as support for this proposition. While I would concede that our Supreme Court’s decision in Brundidge may support such an interpretation, I find that our Supreme Court’s decision in Melendez evidences the Court’s desire to place a greater restriction on the application of the independent source doctrine than it had advanced in Brundidge. In Brundidge, our Supreme Court discussed the applicability of the independent source exception in the context of a police officer’s warrantless entry and search of a hotel room. Therein, a housekeeper entered a hotel room after checkout time in order to prepare the room for a subsequent guest. While inside the room, the housekeeper observed a diagram of the hotel’s front desk and a number of one-inch square plastic baggies in plain view. When the housekeeper notified her manager of her observations, the manager escorted a police officer to the room and permitted the officer to conduct a search of the room and of the guest’s personal effects. As a result of this search, the officer found a quantity of cocaine in a jacket which was covered in plastic and hung in the closet. The officer returned the cocaine to the pocket, departed from the room and submitted an affidavit for a warrant. In the affidavit, the officer listed the diagram of the front desk, the housekeeper’s observation of plastic baggies containing “residue,” the fact that baggies of that size were commonly utilized to package and sell drugs, and the fact that the police were investigating a prior robbery at the hotel as probable cause for the search warrant. A warrant was issued, and the police seized the baggies, the diagram and the quantity of cocaine located in the pocket of the defendant’s jacket.
¶ 3 In determining whether the evidence seized during the search should be suppressed, the Court noted that a hotel guest has no expectation of privacy “in the room or in any item in plain view to anyone readying the room after checkout time for the next occupant.” Id. at 173, 620 A.2d at 1118. Nonetheless, the Court also determined that “a hotel guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy to the contents of discrete and concealed personal effects in a motel room after checkout time.” Id. at 174, 620 A.2d at 1118. In view of these privacy interests, the Supreme Court concluded that the “search of the jacket should have been accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause.” Id. at 174, 620 A.2d at 1119.
¶ 4 Since the officer did not possess a warrant when he initially searched the jacket, the Supreme Court considered whether the evidence would be admissible under the independent source doctrine. Our Supreme Court noted that the United States Supreme Court in Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 108 S.Ct. 2529, 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) developed the independent source doctrine as a corollary to the federal exclusionary rule because
the interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public in*573terest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the police in the same, not a worse position, than they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred....
Brundidge, 533 Pa. at 175, 620 A.2d at 1119 (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Adopting the rationale espoused in Murray, our Supreme Court employed a two-prong inquiry to determine whether evidence would be admissible under the doctrine, namely, “(1) whether the decision to seek a warrant was prompted by what was seen during the initial entry; and (2) whether the magistrate was informed at all of the information.” Brundidge, supra at 176, 620 A.2d at 1119. In view of this standard, the Supreme Court determined that the quantity of cocaine found in the defendant’s pocket would be admissible under the independent source exception because the officer did not mention the cocaine in his application for a warrant and because the magistrate issued the warrant without knowledge of the cocaine. The Supreme Court emphasized that “[t]o hold otherwise would be contrary to the exclusionary rule, for it would put the police in a worse position than they would have occupied if no violation had occurred.” Id. at 176, 620 A.2d 1115. Justices Zappala and Cappy noted their dissent.
¶ 5 Ten months later, in Commonwealth v. Mason, supra, our Supreme Court revisited the applicability of the independent source exception in the context of the police’s invasion of a home prior to the issuance of a warrant. In Mason, an undercover officer and a police informant approached a third man and asked him to purchase a quantity of cocaine for them from a residence. The man complied with their requests, and the police arrested the man within minutes after he departed from the home. The man informed police that he purchased the cocaine inside the residence, that he observed more cocaine in the residence, and that other individuals were making illegal transactions within the home. Based upon this evidence and the police’s prior surveillance of the residence, one officer left the scene to secure a warrant. Before the officer could return with the warrant, another officer entered the apartment by force in an effort “to secure the occupants and any evidence which might be present.” Id. at 563, 637 A.2d at 252. Upon entry, the officers secured the occupants and found a rock of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in plain view. Following the arrival of the warrant, the officers discovered marijuana, additional drug paraphernalia, drug records and drug packaging materials.
¶ 6 In determining whether the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, the Supreme Court questioned whether it should apply the independent source exception, as enunciated in Murray and Brundidge, or whether it should constrict the applicability of the rule in the interests of justice. Foremost, our Supreme Court considered that significant factual differences existed between the instant case and the Brundidge case. While the Brundidge case involved an officer’s entry into an unregistered hotel room at the invitation of a manager, the facts in Mason involved a forceful and unreasonable invasion of a home. Additionally, the Supreme Court considered that Pennsylvania’s exclusionary rule has a different focus than the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment. While the federal exclusionary rule exclusively seeks to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution serves to bolster the *574twin aims of safeguarding privacy and ensuring that warrants only issue upon probable cause. In its effort to uphold these twin aims, the Supreme Court refused to apply the independent source exception and determined that any items seized pursuant to the police’s illegal entry may not be introduced into evidence.
¶ 7 In a concurring opinion, Justice Cap-py agreed with the Majority’s disposition but wrote separately to express his continuing disagreement with the Brundidge decision and to praise the Majority for the “reining in of what might have otherwise become an unfettered stampede to apply the independent source doctrine in contravention of the clear purposes of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and exclusionary rule.” Id. at 572, 637 A.2d at 257. Justice Cappy explained that he dissented in Brundidge due to his concerns that the evidence obtained during the search of the hotel room was not “truly independent” of the illegality. Id. at 572 n. 1, 637 A.2d at 257 n. 1.
¶ 8 Despite his praise for the decision in Mason, Justice Cappy suggested that the Majority should have placed an even greater limitation on the application of the doctrine. Specifically, he stated:
I believe application of the “independent source doctrine” is proper only in the very limited circumstances where the “independent source” is truly independent from, both the tainted evidence and the police or investigative team which engaged in the misconduct by which the tainted evidence was discovered.... Thus, in the case sub judice, I would go further than the majority and hold that except under extraordinarily specific circumstances which are not present here, i.e., a truly independent source, this Court should never tolerate the entry or search of any constitutionally protected private place, absent exigent circumstances, without the proper and prior issuance of a valid search warrant. Such an illegal entry or search should always result in the application of the exclusionary rule, and the consequent suppression of any evidence discovered as a result of police misconduct, whether intentional or inadvertent. I am compelled to conclude that the application of the “independent source doctrine” in a situation where the “independent source” is not truly independent of both the tainted evidence itself and the officers involved in the initial illegal search will completely eviscerate the exclusionary rule, failing to either deter police misconduct or to protect individual privacy rights as required by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Id. at 573-4, 637 A.2d at 257-8 (emphasis in original).
¶ 9 Three years later, our Supreme Court adopted the express limitation on the applicability of the independent source doctrine proposed by Justice Cappy in Mason. In Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 676 A.2d 226 (1996), police were conducting surveillance of a residence to investigate suspected drug activity. While waiting for another officer to secure a warrant, the police observed the defendant exit the home and drive away from the scene. The police stopped the defendant, searched her belongings and found a gun, cash and a drug tally sheet. The police then returned to the residence and utilized the defendant’s keys to gain entry. Upon entry, the police observed another individual holding a bag of cocaine. Once the warrant arrived, the police conducted a search of the home and discovered additional contraband.
¶ 10 On appeal, the defendant maintained that the vehicle stop and the subsequent search of the home, without a *575warrant, required the suppression of the evidence. In considering this claim, the Supreme Court concluded that the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule remains valid in this Commonwealth but recognized that the Supreme Court’s efforts to narrow the applicability of the doctrine in Mason had not adequately protected privacy interests or deterred police misconduct. Thus, the Court concluded that the independent source exception may only be invoked in the limited situation where the “independent source is truly independent from both the tainted evidence and the police or investigative team which engaged in the misconduct by which the tainted evidence was discovered.” Id. at 334, 676 A.2d at 231. Since the Commonwealth could not demonstrate that the evidence seized was “truly independent,” the Supreme Court suppressed the evidence obtained during the illegal search.
¶ 11 Viewing these cases in their historical context, I find that the Supreme Court has effectively expressed its intention to depart from the Brundidge Court’s broad characterization of the independent source exception in recognition of the privacy interests afforded our citizens under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In Brundidge, our Supreme Court adopted the definition of the independent source doctrine contained in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Murray, and, like the Murray Court, focused exclusively upon a desire to deter unlawful police misconduct and to prevent the police from benefiting from their misconduct.
¶ 12 In Mason, however, our Supreme Court began to recognize the limitations of the approach espoused in Murray and Brundidge when it confronted a forcible home invasion. The Mason Court recognized that a strict application of the doctrine would have required the Court to admit the evidence; the police had applied for a warrant prior to the illegal entry and the magistrate issued the warrant based on legally discovered evidence. Nevertheless, the Court refused to apply the doctrine due to the officer’s misconduct and in recognition that the “exclusionary rule in Pennsylvania has consistently served to bolster the twin aims of Article I, Section 8; to-wit, the safeguarding of privacy and the fundamental requirement that warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause.” Mason, 535 Pa. at 570, 637 A.2d at 256 (quotation omitted).
¶ 13 In its most recent discussion of the applicability of the independent source doctrine, our Supreme Court in Melendez effectively distanced itself from the approach advanced in Brundidge. In Melendez, the Court did not consider that the police applied for a warrant prior to their illegal entry into the home and that the magistrate approved the warrant based on legally obtained evidence. Additionally, the Court did not contemplate whether its decision would place the police in a worse position than if they had not engaged in the misconduct. Rather, the Court focused on its desire to protect a citizen’s privacy interests in his/her home and to deter police from engaging in conduct that subjects citizens to unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court concluded that the only effective way to advance these goals was to restrict the application of the independent source doctrine to those instances where the “independent source is truly independent from both the tainted evidence and the police or investigative team which engaged in the misconduct by which the tainted evidence was discovered.” Melendez, 544 Pa. at 334, 676 A.2d at 231.
¶ 14 Although my colleagues in the Majority assert that we may only apply the Melendez rule in those instances where the *576police acted in bad faith or committed an “egregious constitutional affront”, I find no support for this position in the language of Melendez. The Melendez Court did not limit the application of its formulation of the independent source doctrine to home invasion cases. Additionally, I note that Justice Cappy did not intend for his proposed rule to have such limited application. In his concurring opinion, Justice Cappy stated that
except under extraordinarily specific circumstances ..., i.e., a truly independent source, [the courts] should never tolerate the entry or search of any constitutionally protected private place, absent exigent circumstances, without the proper and prior issuance of a valid search warrant. Such an illegal entry or search should always result in the application of the exclusionary rule, and the consequent suppression of any evidence discovered as a result of police misconduct, whether intentional or inadvertent.
Mason, 535 Pa. at 574, 637 A.2d at 258 (emphasis in original).
¶ 15 Further, I cannot accept my colleagues’ assertion that Mason and Melendez stand for the proposition that we need only consider “whether and to what extent the ... police ... profited in their investigation from the initial privacy violation, and ... whether the warrant would have issued even absent the knowledge or evidence gleaned [from police] error.” See Majority’s Opinion, at 567. Nor can I accept that Melendez only mandates an “impermeable barrier” between “evidence secured due to official misconduct of whatever kind and the magistrate’s chamber.” See Majority’s Opinion, at 567. As I stated supra, the officers in Melendez and Mason applied for and received warrants based upon legally obtained evidence. Nevertheless, in both cases, the Supreme Court refused to apply the approach advanced in Brundidge and Murray and placed the police in a worse position in order to safeguard the privacy interests afforded the citizens of this Commonwealth.
¶ 16 Additionally, as the author of our Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Smith, 808 A.2d 215 (Pa.Super.2002), I cannot agree with the Majority’s assertion that the Smith panel refused to strictly apply the independent source doctrine as enumerated in Melendez. As the Majority aptly notes, the Smith panel recognized the strict limitations placed upon the applicability of the independent source exception in Melendez but determined that the Commonwealth demonstrated the truly independent nature of the evidence. Nor can I agree with the Dissent’s suggestion that the “second investigation” conducted in Smith was not truly independent of the first because Detective Lindsay “skimmed” the report of the previous officer. Although Detective Lindsay indicated that he “skimmed” the report to obtain necessary background information, namely, the date and location of the accident, the names of the individuals involved, and other general information, Detective Lindsay testified that he could have obtained the same information from newspaper accounts of the accident. Most critically, after obtaining this basic information, Detective Lindsay conducted his own investigation and uncovered new witnesses who provided new evidence which was used to obtain the search warrant. Detective Lindsay did not simply conduct a “walk through” of the first investigation.
¶ 17 Upon my review of the Supreme Court’s decisional precedent, I cannot agree that the independent source exception articulated in Brundidge has any remaining application in this Commonwealth because it contravenes the purposes of Art*577icle 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Thus, I dissent.
¶ 18 Judges FORD ELLIOTT and MUSMANNO join this Dissenting Opinion.