J-S32006-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JONATHAN A. RICHARDS : : Appellant : No. 2761 EDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 27, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-CR-0003910-2021
BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2024
Jonathan A. Richards appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, following his conviction by a
jury of one count each of homicide by motor vehicle while driving under the
influence,1 homicide by vehicle,2 involuntary manslaughter,3 two counts of
driving under the influence of alcohol,4 and related driving offenses. Following
conviction, the court sentenced Richards to an aggregate term of
imprisonment of six to fifteen years. Richards filed a timely appeal, and both
Richards and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. After our review,
____________________________________________
1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3735(a)(1)(i).
2 Id. at § 3732(a).
3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2504(a).
4 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1); id. at 3802(c). J-S32006-24
we affirm based on the comprehensive opinions authored by the Honorable
Anna-Kristie M. Marks.
The trial court thoroughly set forth the relevant factual and procedural
history in its opinions, which we incorporate herein by reference. See Opinion
on Motion to Suppress, 11/18/22 at 2-6; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion,
12/18/23, at 1-2.
On appeal, Richards raises two issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err by denying [Richards’] motion to suppress his medical records and all evidence obtained thereafter because the four corners of the application for the search warrant did not establish probable cause?
2. Did the trial court err by precluding defense counsel from commenting on evidence during closing argument that had already been admitted by way of a stipulation between the parties?
Appellant’s Brief, at 3.
Richards first argues the application for the initial warrant was overly
broad and “failed to even specify that a crime was committed or that the
evidence sought would be evidence relevant to the crime.” Id. at 9. Richards
contends, therefore, that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all
evidence seized as a result of that initial warrant application.
The initial search warrant application sought Richards’ medical records
because, as a result of Richards’ head-on collision with another vehicle, the
driver of that vehicle was killed and Richards was seriously injured and
transported to Lehigh Valley Cedar Crest Hospital. Affiant Lieutenant Cory
-2- J-S32006-24
Reader, an expert in accident reconstruction, who responded to the scene,
believed the medical records would “help with determining if Richards was
suffering from any preexisting medical condition that may be a contributing
factor in causing the collision.” Affidavit of Probable Cause, Commonwealth
Exhibit 7, 1/25/21. The warrant was executed on January 27, 2021. The
medical records indicated that, during his emergency room treatment,
Richards’ blood tested positive for ethanol and amphetamines. Lieutenant
Reader then applied for a second search warrant, to analyze a blood sample
to determine blood alcohol content and concentration of controlled substances
and/or prescription medications. A third search warrant application was made
for Richards’ Jeep Wrangler to determine the cause or contributing factors of
the collision.
When reviewing suppression decisions, our standard of review is limited.
When reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress evidence, we must determine whether the evidence of record supports the factual findings of the trial court. In making this determination, this Court may only consider the Commonwealth’s evidence and the defendant’s evidence that remains uncontradicted. We view the Commonwealth’s evidence, not as a layperson, but through the eyes of a trained police officer. We do not review the evidence piecemeal, but consider the totality of the circumstances in assessing whether probable cause existed. Additionally, it is exclusively within the province of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony. If the evidence supports the findings of the trial court, those findings bind us and we may reverse only if the suppression court drew erroneous legal conclusions from the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 896 A.2d 583, 584-85 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(quotation omitted). “It is within the suppression court’s sole province as
-3- J-S32006-24
factfinder to pass on the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given
their testimony.” Id. at 585 (citation omitted).
Richards argues the affidavit in support of probable cause for the first
warrant did not establish probable cause because a warrant must specifically
list the things to be seized. See Appellant’s Brief, at 14. Richards contends
that the first search warrant here, seeking Richards’ medical records during
his post-collision treatment, was a request for “overly broad `exploratory
rummaging.’” Id. at 12-13. Richards also contends the application neither
averred a crime was committed, or that evidence of a crime would be
uncovered by executing the search and seizure. Id. at 14. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
206(5) (contents of application for search warrant shall “specify or describe
the crime which has been or is being committed”).
The trial court concluded the affidavit attached to the application for the
search warrant “set forth sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant.” Opinion on Motion to Suppress, supra at 6. We agree.
“Probable cause exists 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 should be conducted.” Commonwealth v. Leed, 186
A.3d 405, 413 (Pa. 2018) (citation omitted). “Probable cause is based on a
finding of probability and does not require a prima facie showing of criminal
activity.” Commonwealth v. Huntington, 924 A.2d 1252, 1256 (Pa. Super.
2007) (citation omitted). “[T]he police need not rule out all other possibilities
-4- J-S32006-24
in establishing probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.”
Commonwealth v. Rapak, 138 A.3d 666, 672-73 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation
omitted).
As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for ... [concluding]” that probable cause existed.
Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822, 843 (Pa. 2009) (citation
omitted). Moreover, in engaging in our review we are mindful that
[t]he Supreme Court of the United States has instructed “that after-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review.” Indeed, a magistrate’s probable cause determination should receive deference from the reviewing courts. In keeping with the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for warrants, “courts should not invalidate ... warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hyper[- ]technical, rather than a commonsense, manner.”
Leed, 186 A.3d at 413 (citation omitted).
Following our review of the record, the trial court's opinions, and the
arguments on appeal, we discern no basis to conclude the trial court erred in
denying Richards’ motion to suppress. As the trial court noted, Lieutenant
Reader believed Richards’ medical records contained evidence regarding “the
cause/contributing factor of the serious motor vehicle accident that occurred
in Upper Macungie Township and thus the medical records would further the
-5- J-S32006-24
ongoing investigation.” Opinion on Motion to Suppress, supra at 8, citing
Affidavit of Probable Cause, 1/25/21. Further, the request was not overly
broad, but, rather, was limited to Richards’ medical records as it pertained to
this incident, from January 17, 2021, through Richards’ date of discharge. Id.
Although the crimes of homicide by motor vehicle or driving under the
influence were not specified, reading the application in a “common sense, non-
technical manner[,]” see Commonwealth v. Dean, 693 A.2d 1360, 1365
(Pa. Super. 1997), it can fairly be implied that the medical records at issue
would provide information critical to the fatal accident investigation. We,
therefore, agree with the trial court’s determination that the factual averments
set forth in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause. See
Opinion on Pretrial Motions, supra at 9.
Next, Richards argues that the trial court erred by precluding defense
counsel from reading, during closing argument, portions of the medical
records that had been admitted at trial. See Appellant’s Brief, at 9. In
particular, Richards wished to read to the jury those portions of the medical
record that pertained to his admission and discharge diagnoses. The trial
court reasoned that the diagnoses constituted inadmissible opinion testimony,
because no medical experts testified during trial. We find no error or abuse
of discretion. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, supra at 3 (“Medical records
are admissible under the hearsay rules as evidence of facts contained therein
but not as evidence of medical opinion or diagnosis. [] Medical diagnoses or
opinions entail a conclusion concerning a condition that is not visible, ‘but
-6- J-S32006-24
reflected circumstantially by the existence of other visible and known
symptoms.’ [] As no formal conclusions were rendered by any medical expert
during the trial, this [c]ourt properly precluded defense counsel from reading
medical conclusions into the record.”). See also Commonwealth v.
Hemingway, 534 A.2d 1104, 1108 (Pa. Super. 1987) (hospital records
admissible to show fact of hospitalization, treatment prescribed, and
symptoms given, but opinions, diagnoses, and conclusions contained therein
not admissible).
We rely on Judge Marks’ opinions to affirm Richards’ judgment of
sentence. We direct the parties to attach a copy of those opinions in the event
of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Date: 11/21/2024
-7- CircLhto 10/29/2024 04.41 Circu4le! 04:41 PM 9:18 AM 11/18/2022 9.18 Judicial Records Clerk of Judicial Lehigh County, Lehigh County, PA
IN IN THE COURT OF THE COURT OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
VS. Case No. No, 3910/2021
JONATHAN RICHARDS, Defendant
•••••••• APPEARANCES: APPEARANCES.
RICHARD DIRECTOR, ESQUIRE, SENIOR DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, On behalf of the Commonwealth
JANET JACKSON, ESQUIRE, On behalf of Defendant
••••••••
OPINION
ANNA-KRISTIE ANNA-KRISTIE M. MARKS, J. M. MARKS.J,
Defendant, Jonathan Richards, has been charged in the above-captioned above- captioned
matter with two two (2) [2) counts of Homicide by Vehicle While Driving under the Influence," Influence,'
Involuntary Manslaughter, Manslaughter,22 two two (2) [2) counts of Driving under the Influence of Alcohol, Alcohol,'3 and
related driving offenses. 4 presently driving offenses.+ Presently before this Court is Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial
Motion in the nature of a a Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to Search
1 75 Pa. C.S.A. $ 75Pa.CS.A. § 3735(a)(1)( 3735(a)(1)(i). 2 2 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2504(a). I8Pa.CSA62504la) 3 75 Pa. C.S.A. 83802(a)(1); 75Pa.CS.A. § 3802(a)(1); 75 75 Pa. C.S.A. $ Pa. C.S.A. § 3802(c). 3802(¢) +4 75 Pa. C.S.A. $3714() 75Pa.CS.A. § 3714(b) Careless Driving; Driving; 75 Pa. C.S.A. $ Pa. C.S.A. § 3309(a) Disregarding Disregarding Traffic Lane; 75 Pa. Lane; 75 C.S.A. §$ 1371(a) Pa. C.S.A. 1371(a) Vehicle Vehicle Registration Registration Suspended; Suspended, and 75 Pa. C.S.A. and 75 C.S.A. §$ 3736(a 3736(a) Warrants, Motion to Quash,° Quash, 5 and a a Motion for Discovery. Discovery.'5 At the hearing, the
Commonwealth presented the testimony of Lieutenant Cory Reader of the Upper
Macungie Township Police Department. The Defendant did not present any evidence on
his own behalf. Based on the testimony of this Commonwealth witness and the record
evidence, we make the following findings of fact. fact
FINDINGS INDINOSOFOF FACT FACT 1. I. On January 17, 2021, at approximately 4:40 440 A.M., members of the Upper
Macungie Township Police Department responded to a a serious motor vehicle
collision on Hamilton Boulevard at the intersection of Farmington
Road/ Independent Road, Allentown, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Road/Independent Pennsylvania. ((C. C. Ex. 2);
(C. Ex. 3); (C. (C. (C. Ex. ); 4); ((C. C. Ex. 5). 5), Upon arrival, the officers found aa two two ((2) 2) vehicle
collision involving aa Jeep Wrangler and a a Nissan Versa. Versa. ((C. C. Ex. Ex. 2), 2); ([C. C. Ex. Ex. 3);
(C. Ex. 4); (C. 4) (C. (C. Ex. 5). 5]. The driver and sole occupant of the Nissan Versa, Wadnor
Jean Louis, was deceased in his vehicle as aa result of the collision, collision. The driver
and sole occupant of the Jeep Wrangler, Defendant Jonathan Richards, was
seriously injured in the accident and was transported to Lehigh Valley Hospital,
Cedar Crest campus.
2. Lieutenant Cory Reader of the Upper Macungie Township Police Department,
and an expert in accident reconstruction, responded on scene to initiate an
Reckless Reckless Driving. Driving. s 5 hearing conducted on October 31, 2022, it was represented At the hearing represented to this Court that the Motion Motion to to Quash Quash was was resolved by agreement resolved by agreement and and consequently consequently will will not not be addressed herein be addressed herein. 6 6 At the status conference conducted on September 19, 2022, the attorney for the Commonwealth represented represented to this Court that he has complied with the Defendant's outstanding discovery requests. In addition, the Defendant agreed outstanding agreed that all requested discovery had been provided. provided.
2 2 investigation into the accident. (C. (C. Ex. 1). On scene, aa point of impact was
located located in in the the southbound southbound travel travel lane of Hamilton Boulevard. ((C. Hamilton Boulevard. C. Ex. Ex. 2). 2. Vehicle Vehicle
damage indicated that the vehicles had struck nearly head on in the
southbound lane before separating and coming to final rest. rest. ((C. C. Ex. 2); (C. (C. Ex.
3); (C. Ex. 4); ((C. (C. Ex. C. Ex. Ex. SJ. 5). Video surveillance from a a nearby business confirmed
that the Jeep Wrangler Wrangler was traveling traveling northbound in the southbound lane on
Hamilton Boulevard when it struck the Nissan Versa in the southbound lane
near the intersection with Farmington Road/ Independent Road. ((C. Road/Independent C. Ex. 6) 6).
3. A A Search Warrant Application for the Defendant's medical records relating to
the motor vehicle collision was submitted by Lieutenant Reader of the Upper
Macungie Township Police Department to Magisterial District Justice Michael
2021. (C. Pochron on January 25, 2021 7 Ex. 7). (C. Ex.
4. Magisterial District Justice Pochron issued the Search Warrant on January 27,
2021 at 10:00 10.00 A.M. A.M. based on the information supplied by Lieutenant Reader
and set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause. Cause. ((C. C. Ex. 7). The Affidavit of
Probable Cause upon which the Search Warrant Warrant was issued reads reads:
Your Affiant A[fiant is aa sworn Police Officer with the Upper Macungie Township Police Department, having legal jurisdiction within the County of Lehigh and the Township of Upper Macungie. Macungie. The location of the 01/17/2021 motor vehicle collision, referenced by incident number UM- 210117- UM-210117. 000423, occurred within Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh
County, PA. Your Affiant has been employed as a a Police
Officer for for 19 I9 years, ycars, and has received training and certification as an Accident Reconstructionist.
On 01/17/2021, the the Upper Macungie Macungie Township Police
3 3 Department Department responded responded to aa serious motor vehicle collision on State Route 222 at Farmington Road in the township. township. The
collision involved aa silver in color Jeep Wrangler bearing PA registration JNK2348, owned and operated by Jonathan registration INK2348, of 2600 Belmont Ave West Lawn, PA 19609. The RICHARDS 0f vehicle operated operated by by RICHARDS was travelling north in the southbound lane of Route 222 when it struck another vehicle head on resulting resulting in the other driver being killed in the collision. collision. This driving action was captured on video surveillance from aa local roadside business. RICHARDS sustained serious injuries in the collision.
RICHARDS was transported to Lehigh Valley Cedar Crest Hospital for treatment of his injuries, and has not yet been
released from the Hospital's care at the time of this writing.
Your Affiant knows that Lehigh Valley Cedar Crest Hospital
records any and all medical procedures and findings in medical records that they maintain as a a regular course of
their treatment of individuals in in their care. care, These records are maintained by by the Medical Records Department at Lehigh Valley Valley Cedar Crest Hospital at 1200 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Allentown, PA 18105. 18105
Your Affiant believes the medical records for Jonathan RICHARDS, as related to this collision and held by the Lehigh Lchigh Valley Cedar Crest Hospital, will help with determining if RICHARDS suffering from any preexisting medical was suffering condition that may be aa contributing factor in causing the collision. This information is considered a a critical part of the investigation.
4 4 Based on the information received so fax, far, the investigation conducted, and your affiant's training and experience, your Affiant Afliant believes probable cuase [sic] [sic] exists to support the a search warrant for RICHARDS' medical records issuance of a held by Lehigh Valley Hospital Cedar Crest, as related to this incident, specifically for the dates of 01/17/2021 01/ 17/2021 through his date of release from the Hospital, or the date this warrant is if still under the care of the Hospital at that time, for served if the purposes of assisting in this investigation. (C. Ex. 7). 7).
5. The Search Warrant was executed on January 27, 2021 at 100 1:00 P.M. P.M. (C. Ex. 7). [C. Ex. T)
Contained within those medical records were entries indicating that the
Defendant's blood tested positive for ethanol and amphetamines during his initial
treatment in the emergency room. Additionally within the medical records were
statements made by the Defendant that he had taken Adderall and and ""blue blue 30s" in
the past, past, which based on Lieutenant Reader's training and experience relates to
30 mg of Oxycodone pills.
6. Consequently, Consequently, Lieutenant Reader applied applied for a a second Search Warrant on
February February 10, 2021 to seize a a legal blood sample drawn by Lehigh Valley Hospital
Cedar Crest from the Defendant on January 17, 2021 2021 (the (the date of the motor
vehicle collision) in the Emergency Emergency Department. (C. [C. Ex. 8). The purpose of this
request was to analyze the blood sample to determine the blood alcohol content
and concentration of controlled substances and/or prescription medications
therein. therein, (C. 8). (C. Ex. 8]. Magisterial District Justice Michael D. D D'Amore approved
the Search Warrant on February 24, 2021 at 12.25 12:25 P.M. based on the
information supplied by Lieutenant Reader and set forth in the Affidavit of
5 Probable Cause Cause. ((C C. Ex. Ex. 8).
7. A third 7.A third Search Warrant Application for the Defendant's Jeep Wrangler was
submitted by Lieutenant Reader of the Upper Macungie Township Police
Department to Magisterial District Justice Michael Faulkner on February II, 11,
2021, in order to inspect the vehicle to determine the cause/contributing cause/ contributing factor
of the motor vehicle collision. collision. ((C. C. Ex. Ex. 9). Within the Affidavit of Probable Cause,
Lieutenant Reader references the contents of the Defendant's medical records,
which was the subject of the initial Search Warrant submitted January 25,
2021. ((C. C. Ex. 9). Magisterial District Justice Faulkner issued the Search Ex. 9).
Warrant on February 11, 2021 at 3:00 3.00 P.M. ((C. C. Ex. Ex. 9).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS OFOF LAW LAW
11. The Affidavit of Probable Cause attached to the application for the Search
Warrant submitted on January 25, 2021 set forth sufficient probable probable cause for
the issuance of aasearch warrant. warrant
2.2. The Search Warrant submitted on January 25, 2021 seeking the Defendant's
medical records was not overbroad.
3. 3. The physical evidence obtained by the police was not seized in violation of
Article 1, Section 8 I, 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution nor the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Constitution
4. 4, The Search Warrants submitted on February 10, 2021 and February 11, 2021
were not the the ""fruits fruits from the poisonous tree," as the Search Warrant relating to
the Defendant's medical records was supported by probable cause and was not
overbroad. The physical physical evidence obtained by the authorities relating to these
6 6 Search Warrants was not seized in in violation of Article 1, I, Section 8 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution nor the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution. Constitution
DISCUSSION
The Defendant is alleging that the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in
support Support of the initial Search Warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for the
search of the Defendant's medical records. records. The legal principles applicable to aa review of
the sufficiency of Probable Cause Affidavits are well- settled: well-settled:
Before an issuing authority authority7 may issue aa constitutionally valid search warrant, he or she must be furnished with information sufficient to persuade a a reasonable person that probable cause exists to conduct a a search. search, The standard for evaluating a a search warrant is a a "totality "totality of the circumstances" test as set forth in Illinois [inois yv. Gates, 462 U.S U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.24 527 527 ((1983), 1983), and adopted in Commonwealth y, v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476, 503 A.2d 921 921 ((1985 1985). A magistrate is to make aa "practical, A practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the the `veracity' and `basis 'veracity' and basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there isis aa fair probability that contraband or evidence of a a crime will be found in a a particular place. place.s "8 The information offered to establish probable cause must be viewed in a a common sense, non- technical non-technical manner. Probable cause is based on aa finding of the probability, not a a prima facie showing of criminal activity, and deference is to be accorded a a magistrate's finding of probable cause.s cause. 9 Commonwealth y, v. Dean, 693 A.2d 1360, 1365 1365 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 1997). 1997)
Commonwealth y,v. Ryerson, 817 A.2d 510, 513-514 513-514 (Pa. Super. 2003). (Pa. Super 2003). In determining
whether the warrant is supported by probable cause, the magistrate may not consider
any evidence outside the four- affidavit. Commonwealth corners of the affidavit. four-corners • Jones, 484 A.2d Commonwealth v.
1383 (Pa. (Pa. 1984); Commonwealth v. y, Smith, 784 A.2d 182, 185 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2001; 2001);
' See Pa. Pa. R.Crim.P. 200 (footnote R.Crim.P, 200 added). (footnote added) • 8 See also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. QlA$, Glass, 754 A.2d 655 655 (Pa. 2000) (footnote (Pa. 2000) added). (footnote added
7 7 Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Sharp, 453 Pa. Pa. Super. Super. 349, 683 A.2d A.2 1219, 1223 1223 ((1996). 1996). See See also Pa.
R.Crim.P. 203(B) ("No R.Crim.P, 203(] (No search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by
one or more affidavits sworn to before the issuing authority in person or using advanced
communication technology. technology. The issuing authority, in determining whether probable
cause has been established, may not consider any evidence outside the affidavits."}; affidavits. "); See
also Pa. R.Crim.P. 203(D) (At R.Crim.P. 203(D) a hearing on a (At a a motion for the return or suppression of
evidence, or for suppression of the fruits of evidence, obtained pursuant to a a search
warrant, no evidence shall be admissible to establish probable cause other than the
affidavits provided provided for in paragraph for in paragraph (B). "). (B).")
In the within matter, the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in support of
the January January 25, 2021 Search Warrant was prepared by Lieutenant Reader of the
Upper Upper Macungie Township Police Macungie Township Police Department. Department The Affidavit of Probable Cause
averred that Lieutenant Reader believed that the Defendant's medical records
contained evidence regarding cause/ contributing factor of the serious motor regarding the cause/contributing
vehicle accident that occurred in Upper Upper Macungie Township and thus the medical
records would further the ongoing investigation. investigation. Additionally, Lieutenant Reader set
reasonable temporal parameters within his request and did not seek all of the
Defendant's medical records held by by Lehigh Valley Valley Hospital Cedar Crest. Instead,
Lieutenant Reader limited his request to those medical records as they related to this
incident, specifically for the dates of 01/17/2021 through the Defendant's date of
release from Lehigh Valley Hospital. Hospital. Lieutenant Reader, a a police officer for 19 years
who received training and certification as an Accident Reconstructionist, believed that
the Search Warrant for the Defendant's medical records was necessary for the
• 9 See also See also Commonwealth v. y, Davis, Davis, 718 A.2d 797 ((Pa. A.24 797 Pa. Super Super. 1998) 1998) (footnote added). (footnote added)
8 8 case. The standards of practicality furtherance of the case, practicality and common sense that guide
issuing issuing authorities require the conclusion in this instance that the Defendant's
medical records would have information as to a a preexisting illness or condition that
would elucidate the events of the motor vehicle crash on January 17, 2021 2021. Therefore,
we find that the factual averments set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause were
sufficient to establish probable probable cause and to sustain the issuance of the Search
Warrant. Thus, the Defendant's challenge to the Probable Cause Affidavit supporting
the Search Search Warrant Warrant of the Defendant's medical records records is void of merit. As such, the the
Defendant's assertion that the Search Warrants submitted on February 10, 2021 and
February 11, February 1I, 2021 202l were the the ""fruits fruits from the poisonous tree" must also fail, as the
Search Warrant relating relating to the Defendant's medical records was supported by
probable probable cause and was was not overbroad.
Based on the foregoing, foregoing, the Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion is
denied.
9 9