Court Opinion

ID: 9948468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 14:09:45.732846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:43.515955
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania         :
                                     :
      v.                             :       No. 1651 C.D. 2018
                                     :
Two Hundred and Four Dollars         :
($204.00) U.S. Currency, 1994        :
Green Toyota Corolla,                :
VIN #JT2EL43TXR045421,               :
1971 Blue Ford Thunderbird,          :
VIN #1Y84N128980,                    :
1996 Green Ford F-150 Pick-up Truck, :
VIN #1FTEX14N0TKA40441,              :
2004 Black Ford Explorer,            :
VIN #1FMDU74W44UB96807               :
                                     :
Appeal of: Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr. :       Submitted: February 6, 2024

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE CEISLER                                          FILED: March 7, 2024

      Currently before the Court is Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr.’s (Appellant) challenge
to the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County’s (Common Pleas) April 9,
2018 order, through which Common Pleas granted in part and denied in part five
Petitions for Forfeiture (collectively Petitions) filed by Appellee Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (Commonwealth).1 Upon review, we affirm.

                                         I. Background
       This civil asset forfeiture matter has its genesis in Appellant’s 2017 conviction
in Common Pleas for a litany of drug trafficking-related offenses. During the
summer of 2016, law enforcement in Northampton County began surveilling
Appellant due to its suspicion that he was trafficking cocaine in the area. Common
Pleas Op., 4/9/18, at 3. They then purchased drugs from Appellant several times
through an informant, before ultimately arresting Appellant on November 4, 2016.
Id. at 3-6. As recounted by Common Pleas:
               [Sergeant Vasa Faasuamalie, Task Force Officer with the
               Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and an officer with the
               Palmer Township Police Department, was] conducting
               surveillance [along with other law enforcement agents] on
               [Appellant] at his residence, 914 S. 25th Street, Easton,
               Pennsylvania. Officers observed [Appellant] exit his
               apartment, where[upon] he began loading items into the
               trunk of his Ford Thunderbird. Sergeant Faasuamalie
               (along with other officers from the task force) approached
               [Appellant] while [Appellant] was standing outside of
               [Appellant’s] vehicle, announced his title, and asked
               [Appellant] if [Appellant] would speak with him. DEA
               Agent Joseph Labenburg was surveilling [Appellant] from
               across the street. As Sergeant Faasuamalie approached
               [Appellant], Agent Labenburg observed [Appellant] toss a
               black item toward a portico attached to the apartment
               building (a semi-enclosed porch area which leads to the
               entrance of [Appellant’s] apartment building).
               [Appellant] refused to cooperate with Sergeant
               Faasuamalie, at which point he was detained and
               transported to the Palmer Township Police Department.

       1
         On July 10, 2023, the Commonwealth filed a notice of non-participation with this Court,
in which it stated that it “will be relying on the trial court record and will not be filing a brief in
this matter.” Notice of Non-Participation at 1.

                                                  2
            Detective [Brett] Lear conducted a search of [Appellant,]
            which revealed approximately $200.00, three clear vials
            with red caps containing suspected cocaine, and four clear
            vials with green caps also containing suspected cocaine
            (Commonwealth’s Exh. No. 7).
            Agent Labenburg remained on the scene at [Appellant’s]
            apartment, while Sergeant Faasuamalie obtained a search
            warrant to search [Appellant’s] apartment, 914 S. 25th
            Street, Apartment C, Easton, Pennsylvania, and rental
            garages, located at 926 Miller Street, #G-18 and #G-19,
            Easton, Pennsylvania. A K-9 dog was also brought to the
            scene, where the dog “hit” (indicating the presence of
            drugs) on the enclosed porch area.
            Sergeant Faasuamalie prepared an affidavit in support of
            an application for a search warrant, which was signed by
            Magisterial District Judge Jacqueline M. Taschner on
            November 4, 2016. Officers recovered the black item
            located in the enclosed porch area, which turned out to be
            a black, military-style jacket with hidden compartments.
            (Commonwealth’s Exh. No. 4). Various items were
            hidden inside the jacket, including: vials recovered from
            within the jacket’s sleeves (Commonwealth Exh. No. 8),
            66.26 grams of marijuana (Commonwealth Exh. Nos. 9,
            13), 61 Xanax pills (Commonwealth Exh. No. 14), 215
            Oxycodone pills (Commonwealth Exh. No. 15), 47.55
            grams of MDMA (Commonwealth Exh. No. 17), and
            51.2263 grams of cocaine (Commonwealth Exh. Nos. 8,
            11, 12, 16).
            Also recovered within the jacket were various items,
            including plastic baggies, “cutting” materials (substances
            combined with the pure form of a drug to yield a larger
            amount), and a digital scale. (See Commonwealth Exh.
            Nos. 8-22, generally).
Common Pleas Op., 4/9/18, at 5-6 (cleaned up).

      Appellant was consequently charged, in total, with eight counts of possession
of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; eight counts of possession of a
controlled substance; three counts of criminal use of a communication facility; one
count of possession of drug paraphernalia; and one count of unlawful possession of

                                        3
a firearm. Id. at 2. The Commonwealth then initiated multiple forfeiture actions
against Appellant, by filing the aforementioned Petitions on March 18, 2017,
pursuant to a since-repealed statute that was commonly known as the Controlled
Substances Forfeiture Act (Forfeiture Act).2 Id. at 9. Through these Petitions, the
Commonwealth requested forfeiture of the following assets possessed by Appellant:
$204.00 in United States currency; a 1994 green Toyota Corolla, VIN
#JT2EL43TXR045421; a 1971 blue Ford Thunderbird, VIN #1Y84N128980; a
1996 green Ford F-150 Pick-up Truck, VIN #1FTEX14N0TKA40441; and a 2004
black Ford Explorer, VIN #1FMDU74W44UB96807. Id. at 1. Appellant was
thereafter tried in September 2017, whereupon a jury convicted him on all charges
and Common Pleas sentenced him to an aggregate carceral term of 11 to 22 years in
state prison. Id. at 3-9.

       With this conviction in hand, the Commonwealth pressed forward by
continuing to pursue its Petitions, and a hearing was held thereon in Common Pleas
on March 13, 2018. Id. at 9. As recounted by Common Pleas:

               At the forfeiture hearing, the Commonwealth’s sole
               witness was Detective Lear. The Commonwealth
               conducted a direct examination of Detective Lear, after
               which [Appellant] cross-examined the witness. In addition
               to the trial testimony, Detective Lear’s testimony
               established the following:
               During the August 3, 2016 controlled [drug] purchase at
               K-Mart, the police observed [Appellant] arrive at K-Mart
               in the 2004 black Ford Explorer. [Appellant] was observed
               exiting the Explorer, entering the store, and leaving the
               store’s premises in the Explorer. During the forfeiture

       2
         Former 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 6801-6802, repealed by the Act of June 29, 2017, P.L. 247. The
current version of the Forfeiture Act is codified as 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 5801-5808, went into effect on
July 1, 2017, and “substantially altered the [previously] existing burden-shifting scheme for civil
in rem forfeitures[.]” Com. v. $34,440.00 U.S. Currency, 174 A.3d 1031, 1039 n.12 (Pa. 2017).

                                                4
hearing, Detective Lear summarized the means by which
the controlled purchase was conducted and also testified
that the confidential informant provided him with cocaine
purchased from [Appellant] on this occasion.
During the August 31, 2016 controlled purchase, also
conducted at K-Mart, the police again observed
[Appellant] arrive at the store in the black Ford Explorer.
Additionally, Detective Lear testified that the controlled
buy was conducted in a similar fashion to the previous
controlled buys and that following the transaction, the
informant provided the police with cocaine purchased
from [Appellant].
Detective Lear’s testimony at the hearing did not elicit any
additional, relevant information regarding the instant
forfeiture matter in connection with the August 17, 2016
controlled purchase.
Detective Lear also provided testimony regarding the
November 4, 2016 arrest of [Appellant] and the
subsequent search of [Appellant’s] residence and garages.
Specifically, Detective Lear testified the [Appellant] was
arrested outside of his residence based upon three
controlled purchases conducted on August 3, August 17,
and August 31, 2016. A search incident to arrest revealed
approximately seven vials of cocaine on [Appellant’s]
person, along with $204.00. A search warrant was
subsequently issued for [Appellant’s] residence and [the]
two adjacent, detached garages which were being rented
by [Appellant]. During the search of [Appellant’s]
residence, police recovered the [aforementioned] black,
military-style jacket, which contained [the illicit
substances mentioned above].
Police also searched the detached garages, wherein the
1994 green Toyota Corolla was parked. The 1996 green
Ford F-150 Pick-up Truck was parked outside the garages.
Detective Lear testified that Inositol powder, commonly
used as a “cutting agent for narcotics, was also recovered
from the garages.8 A K9 search was conducted on the
Toyota Corolla, Ford F-150, and the [b]lue Ford
Thunderbird, which was parked directly outside [of
Appellant’s] residence. Detective Lear testified that the
dog “did not hit” on the Toyota Corolla. He did not state

                             5
               whether the K9 “hit” on the Ford F-150 or the blue
               Thunderbird.
                       8
                        Detective Lear did not specify from which garage the
                       Toyota Corolla and Inositol powder were recovered.
               ....
               [Appellant’s] cross-examination of Detective Lear
               consisted mainly of [Appellant’s] attempt to discredit
               Detective Lear. Specifically, [Appellant] pointed out that
               Detective Lear was not the officer who saw [Appellant]
               remove the black jacket (containing a cache of narcotics)
               from the Thunderbird and toss it onto his porch. Detective
               Lear conceded this point.
               [Appellant] did not testify on his own behalf at the
               forfeiture proceeding.

Common Pleas Op., 4/9/18, at 10-12 (cleaned up).
       On April 9, 2018, Common Pleas issued an order, in which it granted the
Petitions with regard to the $204.00, the Explorer, and the Thunderbird, but denied
the Petitions as to the Corolla and the F-150. This appeal followed shortly thereafter.

                                          II. Discussion
       Appellant’s arguments,3 as articulated in his pro se brief, are somewhat
difficult to parse, but we read them as presenting two distinct challenges to Common
Pleas’ ruling.4 Appellant’s primary assertion is that Common Pleas should have

       3
           “In an appeal from a forfeiture proceeding, this Court reviews whether findings of fact
made by the trial court are supported by substantial evidence, and whether the trial court abused
its discretion or committed an error of law. Our standard of review is deferential with respect to
the trial court’s findings of fact. Whether the evidence, as a whole, is sufficient to support a legal
conclusion is a question of law. Our scope of review over questions of law is plenary.” Com. v.
1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d 836, 847 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citations omitted).

       4
         We note that “[u]nder Pennsylvania law, pro se [litigants] are subject to the same rules of
procedure as are represented [litigants]. Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed
by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and a court cannot be
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                  6
denied the Petitions in full, due to the following: first, his November 4, 2016 arrest
was unlawful and constitutionally infirm, in that it was done without a warrant in the
absence of exigent circumstances or probable cause that a crime had taken or would
take place; second, the related search warrants were issued illegally and in violation
of his constitutional rights, because they were not premised upon affidavits that
established probable cause that drugs would be discovered at his residence and/or
garages, and they did not list for seizure the four automobiles the Commonwealth
sought through their Petitions. Appellant’s Br. at 5-12. In the alternative, Appellant
claims that Common Pleas should have denied the Petitions with regard to the
Thunderbird, as the Commonwealth failed to establish that this vehicle was an
instrumentality of his criminal activities, thus rendering the Thunderbird’s forfeiture
an unconstitutionally excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution5 and article I, section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.6 Id. at
3-5, 10.
       Appellant’s main argument is invalid, for two intertwined reasons. First, he
made virtually the same assertions regarding his arrest and the related search
warrants during the course of his criminal case, which were rejected by both
Common Pleas and the Superior Court. See Com. v. Sinanan (Pa. Super., No. 578
EDA 2018, filed Jan. 23, 2019) 2019 WL 290685. Second, it challenges the very
basis of his arrest, as well as the legality of law enforcement’s efforts to obtain
incriminating evidence. As such, this argument is nothing more than an

expected to become a litigant’s counsel or find more in a written pro se submission than is fairly
conveyed [therein].” Com. v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

       5
           U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.

       6
           PA. CONST. art I, § 13.

                                                7
impermissible attempt to use this civil proceeding as a mechanism to collaterally
attack Appellant’s criminal conviction. See Barros v. Martin, 92 A.3d 1243, 1252
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546, is sole
legally valid mechanism by which a litigant may collaterally attack their criminal
conviction); Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (same); In re
One 1988 Toyota Corolla (Blue Two-Door Sedan) Pa. License TPV 291, 675 A.2d
1290, 1295 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (cleaned up) (“Where property has been declared
forfeitable under a criminal or quasi-criminal statute, the nature of the forfeiture
proceeding itself is nevertheless in rem and is, therefore, a civil proceeding.
Accordingly, proceedings under the Forfeiture Act are not criminal proceedings as
such; instead, they are civil in form, but quasi-criminal in character.”).
      Appellant’s alternate argument fares no better, albeit for a different reason.
Though Appellant now seeks to challenge Common Pleas’ ruling regarding the
Thunderbird on the basis that this vehicle’s forfeiture violates the constitutional
prohibition against excessive fines, he failed to do so when this matter was before
Common Pleas. Indeed, the record reflects that Appellant did not raise this issue in
his response to the Petitions, during the course of the March 13, 2018 hearing, or in
his post-hearing brief. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that he has
waived this issue. See Pa. R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are
waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).

                                           8
                                         III. Conclusion
       In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we affirm Common Pleas’ April 9,
2018 order.7

                                               __________________________________
                                               ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

       7
         We are nevertheless dismayed by Common Pleas’ lax treatment of the Commonwealth’s
evidentiary burden. “It is well established that a court may not ordinarily take judicial notice in
one case of the records of another case, whether in another court or its own, even though the
contents of those records may be known to the court.” Naffah v. City Deposit Bank, 13 A.2d 63,
64 (Pa. 1940). In this instance, Common Pleas presided over Appellant’s criminal case and the
subsequent forfeiture proceeding. See Hearing Tr., 3/13/18, at 62; Sinanan, supra. However, the
Commonwealth failed to formally seek admission of the criminal case’s record as evidence at the
March 13, 2018 forfeiture hearing. See Hearing Tr., 3/13/18, at 62. Common Pleas nevertheless
decided to take judicial notice of that record, and appears to have predicated large parts of its
adjudication of the Petitions on the contents thereof, as well as upon its own recollection of what
had transpired during the course of the criminal case. See Hearing Tr., 3/13/18, at 62; Common
Pleas Op., 4/9/18, at 2-18. Though we are without the ability to remedy this mistake, for the reasons
that we have already discussed, it remains that Common Pleas’ cavalier treatment of the record
was entirely unacceptable. We direct the Common Pleas court to properly ensure that the
Commonwealth meets its burden in future cases, both because such satisfaction is legally required,
and because it is imperative that individuals are not unduly stripped of their possessions, especially
those like Appellant, who are pro se and have no formal legal training with which to defend
themselves.

                                                  9
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania         :
                                     :
      v.                             :   No. 1651 C.D. 2018
                                     :
Two Hundred and Four Dollars         :
($204.00) U.S. Currency, 1994        :
Green Toyota Corolla,                :
VIN #JT2EL43TXR045421,               :
1971 Blue Ford Thunderbird,          :
VIN #1Y84N128980,                    :
1996 Green Ford F-150 Pick-up Truck, :
VIN #1FTEX14N0TKA40441,              :
2004 Black Ford Explorer,            :
VIN #1FMDU74W44UB96807               :
                                     :
Appeal of: Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr. :

                                ORDER

     AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County’s April 9, 2018 order is
AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   ELLEN CEISLER, Judge