Court Opinion

ID: 9939560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 17:09:51.927945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:24.586268
License: Public Domain

J-S01026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    VICTOR BUENO                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 484 MDA 2023

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 23, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-54-CR-0000297-2022

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                        FILED FEBRUARY 09, 2024

       Victor Bueno appeals from the 12½-to-25-year judgment of sentence

for his convictions from selling drugs and possessing a stolen gun.1          He

challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through the

execution of a search warrant. We affirm.

       On February 15, 2022, Trooper Russ Rothermel of the Pennsylvania

State Police obtained a warrant to search a residence in Schuylkill County.

The owners of the premises were listed as Karla Mitchella Rivera and Edwin

Sanchez-Arroyo. In the affidavit attached to the warrant, Trooper Rothermel

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1  18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925(a) (receiving stolen property); id. § 6105(a)(1)
(persons not to possess firearms); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) (possession with
intent to deliver a controlled substance); id. § 780-113(a)(16) (possession of
a controlled substance); id. § 780-113(a)(32) (drug paraphernalia).
J-S01026-24

detailed the qualifications of a confidential informant who police used in

investigating suspected drug dealing from the residence:

            The confidential informant (hereinafter referred to as CI)
     has been providing information to members of law enforcement in
     excess of four months. The information has included, but is not
     limited to, the names and addresses of area drug traffickers, the
     types of illegal drugs they are distributing, the manner of
     packaging of the illegal drugs and trafficker’s vehicle description.
     The information provided has been proven to be accurate and
     correct through independent investigative techniques, including
     but not limited to surveillance, investigative reports and the
     utilization of other confidential sources. The information that the
     CI has provided has led to controlled purchases of controlled
     substances including Methamphetamine and heroin/fentanyl.

            Furthermore, the CI has been a member of the drug culture
     in the county of Schuylkill, Pennsylvania and has managed to gain
     the trust and confidence of area narcotics dealers as well as other
     criminal elements.     He/she has become familiar with those
     persons and their operations. The CI has become knowledgeable
     of what these substances look like, how they are normally
     packaged for street sales, their average street price and other
     details involved in the illegal sales of controlled substances. The
     CI has also made statements against his/her penal interest.

            Due to the relationship that the CI has with the subject(s)
     of this affidavit they wish to remain anonymous. They fear that
     their safety may be in jeopardy if the target(s) of this investigation
     or any target(s) associates discovered their cooperation with the
     police. The CI is not only concerned about their own safety, but
     also the safety of their family. They [fear retaliation].

Search Warrant, 2/15/22, at 11.

     The affidavit described three controlled purchases of illegal drugs from

the target residence.   Id. at 12–14.      In each purchase, the confidential

informant gave a different “unwitting” individual prerecorded funds to buy

drugs from the residence. The police observed each of these individuals enter

                                     -2-
J-S01026-24

the residence and exit a short time later and meet up with the confidential

informant. The informant then gave the police an amount of drugs consistent

with the funds. In the first purchase, the confidential informant told police

that the unwitting individual said that the drugs were purchased from

Sanchez-Arroyo inside the residence.

      Pursuant to the warrant, police searched the residence and found a

variety of illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, guns, and money. They arrested

Bueno and charged him with the above crimes.

       On May 9, 2022, Bueno filed an omnibus motion including a motion to

suppress the evidence obtained from the search. The suppression court heard

the motion on July 21, 2022. There, Trooper Rothermel explained that “Edwin

Sanchez-Arroyo” was mistakenly listed as one of the owners of the residence

because the confidential informant knew the owner only by his nickname.

When police executed the search warrant, another person in the residence

identified Bueno as the person with that nickname.        N.T., Suppression,

7/21/22, at 6–8.

      The court denied suppression. The case proceeded to a stipulated non-

jury trial, where Bueno was found guilty of the above offenses. On March 23,

2023, the court sentenced Bueno to an aggregate term of 12½ to 25 years of

imprisonment, as well as fines, costs, and restitution.

                                     -3-
J-S01026-24

       Bueno timely appealed.2         Bueno and the suppression court complied

with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

       Bueno argues that the search warrant was defective and thus illegal. He

challenges the suppression court’s conclusion that the warrant provided a

substantial basis for the issuing authority to find probable cause. Specifically,

Bueno submits that the affidavit did not establish a reason to rely on the

confidential informant—the police did not corroborate the informant’s reports,

and the warrant did not state that the confidential informant had given

information that led to arrests or convictions. Bueno notes that he was not

the “Edwin Sanchez-Arroyo” named as one of the property owners, which

could show that the informant was unreliable. Furthermore, Bueno submits

that the warrant gave no basis to establish the reliability of the “unwitting”

individuals, and it left open the possibility that these persons got drugs from

someone other than Bueno.              Bueno urges that the court should have

suppressed all evidence seized from his residence based on the invalid

warrant.

       The Commonwealth responds that Trooper Rothermel reasonably

addressed the discrepancy in the property owner’s name at the suppression

hearing.    The Commonwealth provides persuasive authority that unwitting

individuals described in search warrants may be found reliable if they make

____________________________________________

2 Bueno’s notice of appeal, which he filed pro se while represented by former

counsel, is legally effective. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d
621, 624 (Pa. Super. 2016).

                                           -4-
J-S01026-24

statements against their penal interest and police corroborate the information

they provide. E.g., State v. Brotherton, 859 P.2d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

The   Commonwealth     concludes   that    the   warrant—and   the   denial   of

suppression—were both proper.

      An appellate court reviewing the denial of a suppression motion must

determine “whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by

the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are

correct.”   Commonwealth v. Jones-Williams, 279 A.3d 508, 515 (Pa.

2022). We review questions of law de novo and consider the record from the

suppression hearing.   Commonwealth v. McFarland, 278 A.3d 369, 377

(Pa. Super. 2022). However, any court reviewing a search warrant exercises

a level of deference to the issuing authority; the court determines “only

whether a substantial basis exists for the issuing authority’s finding of

probable cause” and does not invalidate a warrant through a hyper-technical

reading. Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 263 A.3d 626, 646 (Pa. 2021) (citing

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983), and Commonwealth v.

Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017, 1031 (Pa. 2012)).

      The Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania protect against

unreasonable searches and seizures.         McFarland, 278 A.3d at 377.

Accordingly, both require search warrants to be issued only “upon probable

cause,” i.e., “where the facts and circumstances within the affiant’s knowledge

and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in

themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a search

                                     -5-
J-S01026-24

should be conducted.”      Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 645.       The issuing authority

considers the totality of the circumstances in the affidavit of probable cause,

“including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay

information.” Id. at 646.

       Notably, the probable cause determination for a search warrant affidavit

that uses a confidential informant includes consideration of “the informant’s

reliability and basis of knowledge viewed in a common sense, non-technical

manner.” Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2011) (citing

Commonwealth v. Luv, 735 A.2d 87, 90 (Pa. 1999)).                  A confidential

informant’s tip may support probable cause in different ways: “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.” Id. Our Supreme Court rejected

requiring a “talismanic recitation of a particular phrase,” such as the

“customary” statement that the informant previously provided information

that   resulted   in   arrests   or   convictions.   Id.   at   1292   (comparing

Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 917 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Super. 2007)).

       Here, although the search warrant did not state that the confidential

informant’s information had resulted in arrests or convictions, this was not

required for probable cause. Id. The affidavit described that the informant

had provided information for four months, which the police corroborated and

used to make controlled purchases of illegal drugs. It also stated that the

informant was part of the local drug culture and therefore knew about the

                                         -6-
J-S01026-24

drug dealers and their operations. Viewed in a common-sense, non-technical

manner, this is a sufficient demonstration of the informant’s reliability and

basis for knowledge.3

       Likewise, the search warrant is not invalid because the confidential

informant used three different “unwitting” individuals to buy drugs.        The

affidavit describes how each of the controlled purchases was made, with police

watching the individuals enter the residence and leave a short while later.

Each time, the informant produced drugs consistent with the prerecorded

funds that the police provided.            This is adequate corroboration of the

individuals’ activity, which gave the issuing authority a substantial basis to

find probable cause. Pacheco, 263 A.3d at 646; see Commonwealth v.

Cameron, 664 A.2d 1364, 1367 (Pa. Super. 1995) (finding a sufficient basis

to issue a warrant where a reliable informant executed a controlled buy

through an “unwitting” third party whose reliability was not addressed).

Because the suppression court properly denied Bueno’s motion to suppress,

we affirm.

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

3 The informant’s misidentification of the owner of the premises as “Edwin
Sanchez-Arroyo” does not negate this reliability. First, the discrepancy in
names does not appear within the four corners of the search warrant. Second,
the misidentification is reasonable given that the informant used nicknames
as part of the drug culture. Finally, the probable cause for the search focused
on drug sales from the residence, not from any particular individual. Thus,
the name of the owner was not a factor. Moreover, the police resolved the
discrepancy when they learned that Bueno was the person who used the
nickname given by the informant.

                                           -7-
J-S01026-24

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 02/09/2024

                           -8-