Com. v. Pinnock, M.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Pinnock, M.

DecidedMarch 18, 2020

Docket900 MDA 2019

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Pinnock, M. (Com. v. Pinnock, M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Pinnock, M., (Pa. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S67009-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : MILIK EMIL PINNOCK : : Appellant : No. 900 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 3, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0006227-2017

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: MARCH 18, 2020

Appellant, Milik Emil Pinnock, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered on May 3, 2018, following his bench trial convictions for possession

with the intent to deliver1 (“PWID”) and possession of drug paraphernalia.2

We affirm.

The trial court accurately summarized the factual and procedural history

of this case as follows.

On October 6, 2017, the Honorable Howard F. Knisely signed an order authorizing installation of a global positioning system ([“]GPS[“]) mobile tracking device on the Honda Accord owned by Appellant. The application and affidavit presented to Judge Knisely asserted there was probable cause to believe Appellant's vehicle was involved in or connected to criminal activity, ____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113(30).

2 35 Pa.C.S.A. § 780-113 (a)(32). J-S67009-19

specifically, the sale of cocaine purchased in Philadelphia[, Pennsylvania] but distributed within Lancaster[, Pennsylvania]. [On October 9, 2017 t]he GPS tracker was installed on the vehicle . . . pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5731. That day, Appellant’s vehicle traveled to and from Philadelphia.

On October 10, 2017, at approximately 1:10 p.m., members of the Lancaster County Drug Task Force seized Appellant, searched his vehicle and entered his residence at 541 North Plum Street in the City of Lancaster pursuant to a valid search warrant. During the search of the residence, [d]etectives located approximately 263.34 grams of cocaine, $1,073.00 in U.S. currency, two digital gram scales, sandwich bags, and a gallon size bag and two quart size bags with cocaine residue. The seizure and arrest of Appellant resulted in the Commonwealth obtaining additional controlled substances on his person. Subsequent to his arrest, Appellant was administered his Miranda3 warnings by Detective Jason Zeigler of the Drug Task Force, waived his rights, and ultimately provided a statement admitting the cocaine, paraphernalia and money were his and that he was selling cocaine.

Based upon his incriminating statements and the evidence seized from his residence and person, [the Commonwealth charged] Appellant [] with [PWID] cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia[.]

***

[Thereafter,] Appellant filed multiple omnibus pre-trial motions. … Specifically, Appellant moved to suppress the controlled substances and paraphernalia seized from his person and residence[.] [The trial court held a suppression hearing on July 13, 2018 to address Appellant’s various claims and ultimately denied Appellant’s motion to suppress on October 2, 2018.]

On January 25, 2019, Appellant appeared before the [court] for a stipulated bench trial. [That same day, the trial court found Appellant guilty of both charges].

____________________________________________

3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

-2- J-S67009-19

[Appellant was sentenced on May 3, 2019, during which he] received a sentence of 7 to 14 years’ incarceration in a state correctional institution for the PWID conviction. [The court only imposed costs for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. This timely appeal followed.4]

Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/19, at 1-5 (footnotes added) (footnotes omitted).

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

I. Did the affidavit of probable cause in support of the authorization for the October 6, 2017 court order authorizing installation of the [GPS] placed on [Appellant’s] vehicle provide insufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe that the vehicle was involved in criminal activity?

II. Did the affidavit of probable cause for the [search] warrant issued on October 10, 2017[] provide insufficient facts to establish probable cause for the issuing authority to have a basis to believe that [Appellant’s] residence would contain evidence of drug activity?

III. Did the affidavit of probable cause contain deliberate misstatements and omissions that were material to the finding of probable cause to issue the October 10, 2017 search warrant?

IV. Without the GPS tracking device data and the information [tainted] by [] deliberate and material misstatements contained in the affidavit of probable cause for the October 10, 2017 search warrant, would the remaining portions of the affidavit be incapable of establishing probable cause to believe [that] evidence of drug activity would be found in [Appellant’s] residence[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 5-6. ____________________________________________

4 Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 3, 2019. On June 5, 2019, the trial court entered an order directing Appellant to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1). Appellant timely complied. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on June 28, 2019.

-3- J-S67009-19

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, the notes of testimony, and the opinion of the able trial court judge,

the Honorable David L. Ashworth. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled

to relief in this case. Specifically, we agree that the trial court did not err in

denying Appellant’s motion to suppress because both the affidavit in support

of the order authorizing installation of a GPS on Appellant’s vehicle and the

affidavit in support of the October 10, 2017 search warrant were supported

by probable cause. We also note that, based upon our review, we are satisfied

that the affidavit of probable cause did not contain material omissions that

undermined or invalidated the October 10, 2017 search warrant.5 Because

Judge Ashworth’s June 28, 2019 opinion adequately and accurately disposes

of Appellant’s issues on appeal, we adopt it as our own. In any future filing

with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall

attached a copy of Judge Ashworth’s June 28, 2019 opinion.

5 The trial court did not specifically address Appellant’s claim that the October 10, 2017 search warrant was invalid because Detective Weber, the affiant, omitted material facts from the affidavit in support of probable cause. Appellant’s Brief at 23-27. In particular, Appellant claims that Detective Weber omitted the following information: (1) an inventory of every item recovered from Appellant’s trash; (2) the fact that Detective Weber did not, himself, observe Appellant driving his vehicle to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and, (3) the fact that Appellant’s vehicle was parked at a different location in Lancaster for several hours between October 9, 2017 and October 10, 2017. Id. Herein, we conclude that the alleged omissions cited by Appellant were not “highly relevant” to the magistrate’s finding of probable cause. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 850 A.2d 684, 689 (Pa. Super. 2004). We are therefore satisfied that the affidavit of probable cause did not contain material omissions that invalidated the October 10, 2017 search warrant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI