Court Opinion

ID: 9398538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:11:05.866381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.334139
License: Public Domain

J-A29026-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    DANIEL DELIMAN                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 197 WDA 2022

        Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 25, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-02-CR-0005767-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                  FILED: MAY 31, 2023

        Appellant, Daniel Deliman, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on January 25, 2022. We affirm.

        The Commonwealth charged Appellant with two counts of failure to

comply with the registration requirements of Pennsylvania's Sex Offender

Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).1           On December 7, 2021,

Appellant filed a pre-trial motion, where he sought the dismissal of all charges

against him.      Within this motion, Appellant noted that Allegheny County

Deputy Sheriff Lindsey McCarthy arrested him and charged him with

committing the crimes. Appellant’s Pre-Trial Motion, 12/7/21, at 2. However,

Appellant argued:

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1(a)(1).
J-A29026-22

        In the area of sex-offender registration and enforcement, the
        sheriff is without either statutory or common-law authority to
        act. Enforcement in this area has been delegated to the
        Pennsylvania State Police . . . or a “municipal police
        department” [pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.22].

Appellant’s Brief in Support, 1/14/22, at 8-12.

      The trial court denied Appellant’s motion and the case proceeded to a

non-jury trial.   See N.T. Trial, 1/25/22, at 18.     As the trial court ably

explained, the facts of this case are as follows:

        [Appellant was convicted of indecent assault and endangering
        the welfare of children and was sentenced for these crimes
        on March 12, 2020. Id. at 26. As a result of Appellant’s
        convictions, he was required to register with the Pennsylvania
        State Police (“PSP”) as a sexual offender under SORNA. See
        42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.13.] Allegheny County Probation Officer
        Brittany Bickhart was assigned as the probation officer for
        [Appellant]. On April 19, 2021, Ms. Bickhart conducted an
        unannounced field visit to [Appellant’s] residence.
        [Appellant] was not home at the time of the field visit;
        however, Ms. Bickhart was able to reach him via telephone
        call. During that telephone call, [Appellant] stated that he
        was at his new job signing paperwork and that he had been
        involved in a car accident in March. Ms. Bickhart advised
        [Appellant] to update his employment and vehicle on the
        Megan's Law website.

        On April 21, 2021, Ms. Bickhart had contact with [Appellant]
        via text message. On that date, [Appellant] advised that he
        was employed at Adesa and earning $14 [per] hour. Ms.
        Bickhart credibly testified that [Appellant’s] employment at
        Adesa was new employment to her. On April 28, 2021, Ms.
        Bickhart attempted to conduct a field visit at [Appellant’s]
        residence, but [Appellant] was not present. Ms. Bickhart
        checked the Megan's Law website to check [Appellant’s]
        listed employment address and determined that Adesa was
        not listed. Ms. Bickhart then did a Google search of "Adesa"
        and located its address. She traveled to Adesa and found
        [Appellant]. Of note, [Appellant’s] registered vehicle, a
        Mitsubishi Outlander [], was not at Adesa and [Appellant]

                                      -2-
J-A29026-22

        admitted to operating his mother's Toyota Corolla.          In
        discussing the situation with [Appellant], he admitted that he
        did not update his place of employment [or] his vehicle
        registration.

        Allegheny County Sheriff's Detective Lindsey McCarthy
        testified that she attended the police academy for municipal
        police officers and [sheriff’s] school. She testified that it is
        the practice of the sheriff's office to execute bench warrants
        issued by Allegheny County probation. On April 29, 2021,
        Detective McCarthy served a probation violation warrant
        upon [Appellant] and took him into custody. Detective
        McCarthy testified that it is her experience that some of her
        failure to register cases have been referrals from the
        Pennsylvania State Police, that she works closely with the
        Pennsylvania State Police when investigating failure to
        register cases, and that most of her job assignments are
        handed to her by her supervisor.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/22, at 3-4 (citations omitted).

      The trial court found Appellant guilty of one count of failure to register

with the PSP and sentenced Appellant to serve two years of probation for his

conviction. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He raises one claim to

this Court:

        Appellant objected to the Allegheny County Sheriff’s authority
        to commence, and advance, the filing of charges against him
        for failure to register as a sex offender under 18 Pa.C.S.A.
        § 4915.1. He argued that the sheriff is without any authority
        to act in the area of sex-offender registration and
        enforcement. Enforcement in this area was exclusively
        delegated to the Pennsylvania State Police or “municipal
        police departments” under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.22. The trial
        court held the Allegheny County Sheriff is a “municipal police
        department,” and declined to dismiss the charges.

        Did the trial court err by concluding the term “municipal
        police department,” within 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.22, includes
        the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office?

                                     -3-
J-A29026-22

Appellant’s Brief at 4.

       On appeal, Appellant claims that Allegheny County Deputy Sheriff

Lindsey McCarthy did not have the statutory authority to arrest him for or

charge him with violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1.2        According to Appellant,

only the PSP or a municipal police department had the authority to enforce

SORNA’s registration requirements. Appellant’s Brief at 10. In support of his

claim, Appellant relies upon 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.22. This section of SORNA,

entitled “enforcement,” declares:

         (a) Failure to comply.--When an individual set forth in
         section 9799.13 (relating to applicability) fails to comply with
         section 9799.19 (relating to initial registration), 9799.21
         (relating to penalty) or 9799.36 (relating to counseling of
         sexually violent predators), the Pennsylvania State Police
         shall either:

              (1) In cooperation with the district attorney, seek
              issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the individual and
              locate and arrest the individual for violating this section.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant was convicted of violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1(a)(1).           This
subsection declares:

       (a) Offense defined.--An individual who is subject to
       registration under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.13 (relating to applicability)
       commits an offense if he knowingly fails to:

           (1) register with the Pennsylvania State Police as required
           under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15 (relating to period of registration),
           9799.19 (relating to initial registration) or 9799.25 (relating
           to verification by sexual offenders and Pennsylvania State
           Police)

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.1(a)(1).

                                           -4-
J-A29026-22

              (2) Notify the municipal police department where the
              individual has a residence, is transient, is employed or is
              enrolled as a student. The municipal police shall, in
              cooperation with the district attorney, seek issuance of a
              warrant for the arrest of the individual and locate and
              arrest the individual for violating this section. In
              municipalities where no municipal police department
              exists, the Pennsylvania State Police shall proceed under
              paragraph (1).

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.22(a).

       Appellant argues on appeal:

         The law is clear. When an individual fails to register under
         SORNA, they’re subject to prosecution and penalty. And,
         [when an individual fails to comply with the registration
         requirements,] it’s the [PSP] that’s responsible for
         enforcement, or “the municipal police department,” if so
         notified by the [PSP]. While the [Allegheny County Sheriff’s
         Office] may be a “police department” within the meaning of
         the Municipal Police Education and Training Act, 53 Pa.C.S.A.
         § 2162, the General Assembly did not authorize the
         [Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office] (or any sheriffs) to be
         responsible for the enforcement of SORNA.

Appellant’s Brief at 15-16 (some citations omitted). Thus, Appellant claims,

we must vacate his conviction and instruct that the charges against him be

dismissed. Id. at 4 and 16. Appellant’s claim fails.

       We express no opinion on whether Deputy Sheriff McCarthy3 had the

authority to arrest Appellant because, even if she illegally arrested Appellant,

____________________________________________

3 We note that, under both the Crimes Code and the Municipal Police Education
and Training Law, Deputy Sheriff McCarthy falls under the definition of a
“police officer.” See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 103 (defining the term “police officer” to
include: “the sheriff of a county of the second class and deputy sheriffs of a
county of the second class who have successfully completed the requirements
under . . . the Municipal Police Education and Training Law”); 53 Pa.C.S.A.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-A29026-22

the remedy for this hypothetical violation would not be the vacation of

Appellant’s convictions and the dismissal of the charges against him, as

Appellant requests.      Rather, the proper remedy for an illegal arrest is the

suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal seizure and

arrest. See Commonwealth v. Bullers, 637 A.2d 1326, 1328 (Pa. 1994)

(“[t]he legality of the arrest is relevant to the derivative question of whether

a search incident to the arrest was permitted under the circumstances”);

Commonwealth v. Leet, 641 A.2d 299, 301 (Pa. 1994) (holding that the

deputy sheriff of Armstrong County did not have the authority to make a

warrantless arrest for motor vehicle violations committed in his presence and,

thus,    the   evidence     against     the    defendant   must   be   suppressed);

Commonwealth v. Bienstock, 673 A.2d 952, (Pa. Super. 1996) (holding

that, since the Liquor Control Enforcement Officer did not have the authority

to stop the defendant for a traffic violation, all evidence against the defendant

must be suppressed).

        In the case at bar, Appellant did not request that the trial court suppress

any evidence against him. Instead, Appellant claimed that he was illegally
____________________________________________

§ 2162 (defining “police department” to include “the sheriff’s office in a county
of the second class”); 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 2162 (defining “police officer” to include
“[a] deputy sheriff of a county of the second class”); N.T. Trial, 1/25/22, at
12-13 (Appellant conceded that Deputy Sheriff McCarthy was a “police officer”
under the law). Moreover, as a police officer, Deputy Sheriff McCarthy
possessed “full police powers.” Kopko v. Miller, 892 A.2d 766, 779 (Pa.
2006) (declaring that, under 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 2162, “the office of the sheriff in
a second class county may exercise full police powers upon meeting the
training requirements therein specified”).

                                           -6-
J-A29026-22

arrested and that, as a result of this illegal arrest, the trial court was required

to dismiss all charges against him. See Appellant’s Pre-Trial Motion, 12/7/21,

at 8. Such a remedy is unavailable to Appellant and, thus, Appellant’s claim

on appeal necessarily fails.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/31/2023

                                       -7-