Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Allan Leslie Sinanan, Jr., Petitioner v. Pennsylvania
Supreme Court briefJan 16, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No.
ML
51
IN THE
SUPREME COURT’ OF THE UNITED STATES
Allan Leslie Sinanan Jr. (Pro-Se) Petitioner
Vs.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent(s)
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
\
FILED
JAN 1 6 2020
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Direct Appeal)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARj
Brief for Petitioner
Joint Appendix
PARTIES:
ALLAN LESLIE SINANAN JR.
#JY-2380
S.C.I. Albion
10745 Route 18
Albion, Pa. 16475-0001
KATHARINE R. KURNAS
Northampton County District Attorney's Office
669 Washingtbri Street '
Easton, Pa. 18042
- *« •*£.-
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1) The crux of this Writ of Certiorari is whether Law Enforcement
Authorities'
engaged
in
circumvent
Petitioner's
tactics
and
procedures
Constitutional
designed *to»
protected
rights
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment against unlawful search and
seizure, and whether the State Court determination represented a
decision that is contrary to or an unreasonable application of
clearly established Federal Law?
2)
The
last
issue
whether
the
State's
presented
for
determination
this
in
Writ
this
of
matter
Certiorari
represents
is
a
decision that will permit Law Enforcement Authorities to embark
on policy and procedure that will routinely violate a citizen's
\
Fourth Amendment right?
(1 of 36)
THE TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1
LIST OF PARTIES
2
'CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL OPINIONS AND ORDERS..**.
:
3
EXHIBIT APPENDIX
4
JURISDICTION
5
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
7
BACKGROUND HISTORY OF CASE
8
ARGUMENT
13
CONCLUSION
32
PROOF OF SERVICE
35
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT
36
(i)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CASE:
UNITED STATES CASE LAW
Adams V. Williams, «-40’7 U.S. 143 (1972).................................
22
Aguilar V. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)................................
14
Alabama V, White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990)............. ..................... ......... 23,24
Beck V. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).........................................
14,15,22,30
Brinegar V. U.S., 338 U.S. 160 (1949)...................................
32
Coolidge V. New Hampshire, 403 U.S., at 469-471 (1971)
29
Draper V. U.S. , 358 U.S. 307 (1959)..................... .................
23
Dunaway V.- New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)............................
29
Illinois V. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983)... 13,14,15,21,22,23,24,32
Illinois V. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)..........
25
Johnson V. U.S. , 333 U.S. 10 (1948).......................... ..
21
Ker V. State of California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963)....
13,15
Splnelli V. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969)........................
14
Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)..................... ...............
25,28,32
U.S. V. Brown, 448 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2006)..............
26
U.S, V. Campbell, 920 F.2d 793 (U.S. App. 1991)...
14
U.S. V. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581 (1948)............. .....................
21,29
U.S. V. Fixen, 780 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1986)......
24
U.S. V. Gilbert, 45 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 1995).........
24
U.S. V. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053 (U.S. App. 2005)...
29
U.S. V. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)..............................
27,30
.......... U.S.'V. «Tlle¥~ 925 F. 2d' 695 {'4th cir. 1991). .:.V.
U.S. V. Robertson, 305 F.3d 164 (U.S. App. 2002)..
15,25,29
U.S. V. Washington, 387 F.3d 1060 (U.S. App. 2004)
29
(ii)
(Cont.) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
CASES:
UNITED STATES CASE LAW
«.
U.S. V. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976)........ : . .
13
Wong Sun V. U.S., 371 U.S. 471 (1963).........
26
COMMONWEALTH CASE LAW
Commonwealth V. Eazer, 312 A.2d 398 (Pa. 1973)...
30
Commonwealth V. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (1985)..............
14,32
Commonwealth V. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996)
30
PENNSYLVANIA CRIMES CODE RULES
234 Rule 513. (Requirements for Issuance of Arrest Warrants.)
234 Rule 519. (Arrest Without Warrant.)
PENNSYLVANIA STATE STATUTES
18
§ 7512 §§ A
35
§ 780-113 §§ A16
35
§ 780-113 §§ A30
35
§ 780-113 §§ A32
WHARTON"S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (10th Ed.)
SECTION 36, PAGES 74, 75
"In
those
cases where
the offense is past,
the rule is
different and an officer may not apprehend the offender without a
warrant, except in outrageous crimes of the felony type. In the
cases of such crimes, however, it is -the duty of the officers to
•*>*
l^ih“1Smidiat ely''a ft er"“no FId¥~”th£~ *^TsuTF'bT"1:Ke""^eFsQn',t:Karg’€a;'‘’K""''''''''
with
the
offense,
provided
only
reasonable grounds of suspicion."
(iii)
that
there
be
at
the
time
LIST OF PARTIES
All parties that do not appear in the caption of the case on
the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the
court
whose
judgment
is
the
sfrbj'fect
of
this
follows:
HONORABLE JACQUELINE M. TASCHNER
Magistrate District Judge (Pa. Commonwealth)
Palmer Township
3 Weller Place
Easton, Pa. 18045 v
HONORABLE JUDGE EMIL GIORDANO
Northampton County Courthouse (Pa. Commonwealth)
669 Washington Street
Easton, Pa. 18042
HONORABLE PRESIDENT JUDGE STEPHEN G. BARATTA
Northampton County Courthouse (Pa. Commonwealth)
669 Washington Street
Easton, Pa. 18042
MICHAEL J. THOMPSON
Assistant District Attorney (Pa. Commonwealth)
Northampton County District Attorney's Office
669 Washington Street
Easton, Pa. 18042
-
JOHN MICHAEL MORGANELLI
‘District "Attorney * (’Pa. Commonwealth) •
Northampton County District Attorney's Office
669 Washington Street
Easton, Pa. 18042
(2 of 36)
petition
is
as
CITATIONS OF THE OFFICIAL OPINIONS AND ORDERS
Court of Common Pleas
A cdpy'of the Honorable Judge Emil Giordano's Opinion, ‘dated July
APPENDIX A
26, 2017
A copy
of
the
Honorable
President Judge Stephen G.
Baratta's
APPENDIX B
Opinion, dated January 29, 2018
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
A copy of the LETTER showing a discrepancy in the Formatting of
the
Suppression
Hearing
Transcript,
dated
May
31,
APPENDIX C
2018
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion Affirming Trial Sentence by the
Superior
of
Court
Pennsylvania,
dated
January
APPENDIX D
2019
A
copy
23,
of
Superior
the
ORDER
Court
denying
of
request
for
Pennsylvania,
reargument
dated
by
April
the
11,
APPENDIX E
2019
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A
copy
of
the
informing that,
letter
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Pennsylvania
the Commonwealth Court will not be submitting a
substantive answer to Petioner's Petition for Allowance of Appeal
APPENDIX F
(Docket No. 305 MAL 2019, dated May 17, 2019
A copy of
the ORDER by Supreme Court Pennsylvania denying the
Petition
for
Allowance
of
Appeal,
dated
January
7,
“APPENDIX G
;^2020.7'.T
(3 of 36)
EXHIBIT APPENDIX
Commitment into the custody of Northampton County Prison,
start
APPENDIX H
date November 4, 2016 at 3;50pm
Application for Search Warrant and Authorization, issued November
4, 2016 at 11:20am
APPENDIX I
Police'Criminal Complaint filed November 4, 2016.
APPENDIX J
Police Criminal Complaint filed December 27, 2016
APPENDIX K
1925(b) Concise Statement filed March 9, 2018....
APPENDIX L
A copy
of
the ORDER to amend 1925(b)
Statement dated May 21,
APPENDIX M
2018
A
copy
of
amended
1925(b)
Statement
filed
May
24,
APPENDIX N
2018
(4 of 36)
JURISDICTION
[ ] For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court ofAppealsjdecided my case
was ;___________ -_________
[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
, and a copy of the
Appeals on the following date:___________ _
order denying rehearing appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
(date)
to and including______ .
(date) on__.
in Application No. __ A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).
[yf^For cases from state courts:
The date on which the highest state court decided my case was 1/7/2020
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix__G___
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
_______ ____________!_, and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix
[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
(date) in
(date) on
to and including__ :_
Application No.__ A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).
•fit* r.»
(5 of 36)
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
The United States Constitution Amendment 4- Provides; The right of
the people to be‘;sebure in their persons,
houses,
papers,
and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Pennsylvania Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Provides: The
people
shall
be
secure
in
their
possessions
from
warrant
search any place or
shall
to
unreasonable
issue without describing
without
probable
cause
persons,
searches
and
houses
papers
seizures,
to seize any person or
them as
supported
by
nearly as
oath
or
may
and
and
no
things
be,
nor
affirmation
subscribed to by the affiant.
Under both Federal and State provisions, people are to be secure
in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(6 of 36)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The
instant
Criminal
trial:
matter
Informations,
Docket No's,
before
the
Court
involves
two
(2)
which were consolidated for purposes of
CP-48-CR-OOO43O1-2016■ and CP-48-CR-0000169-
2017. A Preliminary Hearing was held on December 27, 2016, before
Magisterial District Judge Jacqueline M. Taschner for Docket No.
4301-2016, which was bound over to Common Pleas Court for Formal
Arraignment held
Charges
being
Hearing
(Docket
for March 2,
filed
on
No.
2017.
December
169-2017).
This
27,
This
was
followed by New
2016 at
same Preliminary
was
followed by
a
second
Preliminary Hearing on January 18, 2017, held before Magisterial
District Judge Jacqueline M.
Taschner for Docket No.
169-2017,
which was bound over to Common Pleas Court for Formal Arraignment
held for March 30, 2017.
A Habeas Corpus and Suppression Hearing was held on June 14,
2017,
both
Criminal
Informations
were
consolidated
for
that
Hearing.
Both
Trial
held
Criminal
on
Informations
September
5,
were
2017
consolidated
through
for
September
a
8,
Jury
2017.
Petitioner was sentenced on September 22, 2017, to a total term
of
11
to
President
22
years,
Judge
Courthouse. . This
commencing
Stephen
was
G.
followed
on
November
Baratta
by
a
Post
4,
2016,
by Hon.
Northampton
County
Sentence
Motion
(in
Arrest of Judgment) filed on September 27, 2017.
No'tice'of Appeal to the Superior Court o'f Pennsylvania was""
filed on February 15, 2018, from the ORDER entered on January 29,
2018 by Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. On January
(7 of 36)
23,
2019,
the
Superior
Court
of
Pennsylvania
the
affirmed,
judgment of sentence entered in the Northampton County Court of
Common Pleas. Request for reargument was filed on February 12,
- 2619 y - wrt h'-thd Superior Court of Pennsylvania, for decision dated
January
23,
2019.
On
April
11,
2019
the
Superior
Court
of
Pennsylvania denied the request for reargument.
A Petition for Allocatur was filed on May 9, 2019 with the
Supreme
Court
of
Pennsylvania
Docket
305
No*
MAL
2019.
The
Petition for Allowance of Appeal was denied on January 7, 2020,
by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
BACKGROUND HISTORY OF CASE
Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on November
4, 2016 for:
Docket No.
4301-2016,
Filed on November 4,
Township Police Department,
charging
2016 by the Palmer
the Petitioner with three
(3) counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to
Deliver (F) 35 § 780-113 §§ A30; three (3) counts of Possession
of a Controlled Substance (M) 35 § 780-113 §§ A16; and three (3)
counts of Criminal Use of a Communication Facility (F3) 18 § 7512
§§ A.
It is alleged by Vasa Faasuamalie, Task Force Officer with
the
Drug
arrest
Enforcement Adminstration Agency
and
at
the
time of
Detective at the Palmer Township Police Department, he
received- ihf bffridtxbir^in JOner"2016p" from A Cetifidetit i^r-*“
(who
has
been
allowed
to
stay
anonymous
protests)
that
the Petitioner was
(8 of 36)
agaisnt
all
trafficking cocaine
legal
in
the
area. Thereafter, Vasa Faasuamalie alleged that in July 2016, the
Palmer Township Police Department conducted a traffic stop on a
Daniel Skodocek, based on their belief that Mr. Skodocek had just
purchased drugs from Petitioner^ It is said.by Vasa Faasuamalie
that, in return for Mr. Skodocek's cooperation, Mr. Skodocek was
promised
not
possession,
month
of
to
be
criminally
recovered during
July
2016;
if,
charged,
this
/
Mr.
for
alleged
Skodocek
the
drugs
traffic
stop
agreed
to
in his
in
work
the
as
a
Confidential Source for Vasa Faasuamalie against the Petitioner.
Thereafter,
on
these
three
(3)
separate
occasions,
Mr.
Skodocek worked for Vasa Faasuamalie as this Confidential Source,
on
a
mission
Faasuamalie:
to
engage
the
(1) On August 3,
Petitioner
2016,
for
Detective
Vasa
it is alleged by Dt. Vasa
Faasuamalie that, Mr. Skodocek told him that, he obtained cocaine
from Petitioner inside a K-Mart, that, was in exchanged for pre
recorded U.S. currency. It is said that Mr. Skodocek arrived at
this
K-Mart
in his
own vehicle by himself.
(2) On August 17,
2016,
it is alleged by Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie that, Mr.
Skodocek
told him that, he again, obtained cocaine from Petitioner, this
time at
the Palmer Township Center,
that was
in exchanged for
pre-recorded U.S. currency. It is said that Mr. Skodocek arrived
at this Palmer Township Center in his own vehicle by himself. (3)
On August 31, 2016 the last alleged interaction, it is alleged by
Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie that, Mr. Skodocek told him that, once more,
he obtained cocaine from Petitioner inside a K-Mart, tnat was m
exchanged
for pre-recorded U.S.
currency.
It is
said
that Mr.
Skodocek arrived at this K-Mart in his own vehicle by himself.
(9 of 36)
Following
these
three
(3)
alleged
sales,
without
any
continued criminal activity up to or about November 4, 2016, over
sixty
(60)
days
after
the
alleged
FaaSuafnalie
along
with,
members
of
third
the
DEA,
sale.
Dt.
Vasa
Palmer
“Township
Police Department, Wilson Borough Police Department, and the Drug
Task
Force,
surveillance
18042,
without
at
an
arrest
8:00am at
914
warrant,
South
were
25th Street,
conducting
Easton,
Pa.
to seize the Petitioner at his residence, solely for the
alleged
drug
sales
from
the
month
of
August
2016.
Officers
observed the Petitioner exit his residence for work at 8:30am.
Dt.
Vasa
Faasuamalie
approached
the
Petitioner,
while
the
Petitioner was standing at the trunk of his vehicle placing his
tool bag in the trunk.
office,
Dt. Faasuamalie announced his title and
at the same time grabbed the Petitioner,
the Petitioner
then informed
that he was being detained on pending charges.
Petitioner complied and was
transported to the Palmer Township
Police Station for the arrest process. Officer's remained on the
scene
at
the Petitoner's
residence,
while Dt.
Faasuamalie was
transporting the Petitioner to a holding cell for arrest, and to
obtain
a
search warrant
to
search the Petitoner's
without Petitioner being present.
properties
(Due to no criminal complaint
filed before the arrest, the first record of arrest is within the
subsequent Search Warrant Application on page #10, Filed November
4, 2016.)
~
^'TO^0|iHfrT5Ke‘"^arciri?arr^rV^plicaTIdh'^arTststi?cr Dfi rff®
report
by Vasa
Faasuamalie
that
Petitioner had drugs
on his
person when he was stripped searched at the police station, with
(10. of 36)
no proof, documentation, and or exhibit. Subsequent to the search
of Petitioner's properties, Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie filed a Police
Criminal Complaint dated November 4, 2016. See, (Police Criminal
Complaint 11-4- 2016.)
On December 27, 2016, fifty-three (53) days after the arrest
and
search
Hearing
of
for
Faasuamalie
reckless
the
properties,
at
the
the
three
(3)
alleged
files
a
second
Police
for
the truth,
disregard
end
drug
of
the
sales,
Criminal
Preliminary
Officer
Vasa
Complaint
with
alleging for the first time
ever, that Petitioner was on November 4, 2016, observed throwing
a large duffle bag of drugs, that was allegedly found outside the
apartment complex,
Search
Warrant
Inventory
that was introduced in the inventory of the
oh
November
Sheet, dated
2016.
4,
November
4,
See,
2016);
(Search
Warrant
Also
See,
(Police
filed
by
Dt.
Vasa
found
on
the
stem
from
the
Criminal Complaint dated December 27, 2016).
This
admission
of
false
information
Faasuamalie,
along
with
the
Petitioner's
person
at
Police
the
alleged
drugs
Station,
all
arrest made on November 4, 2016. Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie used that
arrest
to circumvent
the Petitioner's
Constitutional
protected
rights,
to obtain a Search Warrant for Petitioner's properties,
and when he did not find what he was looking for he panicked, by
putting on the Search Warrant Inventory sheet that a Black Jacket
with drugs was sitting on a chair outside door of apartment. When
he talked to
the A.D.A and realized there was no consir uct!ve
possession he filed the second Criminal Complaint With a better
story for a constructive possession charge. Why do I say this?
(11 of 36)
On
November
Officer
s
Vasa
4,
day
Faasuamalie
probable
cause,
* affidavit
for
the
Officer
of
filed
subsequent
Petitioner had drugs
Station,
2016,
arrest
two
to
and property
different
search,
Affidavits
Petitioner's
arrest:
[l]
Search
Warrant
which
on his
person,
when moved
to
used
information
Vasa
Faasuamalie
Alleged
that
for
that
the
A
the
Police
to
validate the Search Warrant; and [2] A affidavit for the Criminal
Complaint to justify the arrest itself, which was filed after the
search
of
Complaint,
Petitioner's
properties.
Affidavit
Probable
of
paragraph 15, File November 4,
See,
Cause
(Police
Continuation,
Criminal
page
5
2016 even though Vasa forgot to
number the pages its still page 5 paragraph 15.)
No where, on either of those two Affidavit does Officer Vasa
Faasuamalie mention or even hint at a bag or jacket being thrown
on the day of arrest.
Due to the New Charges filed because of
the new Criminal
Complaint I was charged with:
Docket No.
169-2017,
filed on December 27,
2016 by the Palmer
Township Police Department charged the Petitioner with five (5)
counts
of Possession
of a Controlled Substance with Intent
to
Deliver (F) 35 § 780-113 §§ A30; five (5) counts of Possession of
a Controlled Substance (M) 35 § 780-113 §§ A16; one (1) count of
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (M) 35 § 780-113 §§ A32.
This is where (Docket No. 169-2017) I got 11 to 22 years,
Troin‘'soma‘'raM6m'*'cfia'fge'‘^Vn‘Wificer\^asa',T:aasuamal‘xe‘*2fiHn:'1B‘'ge'C'''1'
his way, because I didn't want to work for him. Now I fight, for
my life.
(12 of 36)
ARGUMENT
1) The crux of this Writ of Certiorari is whether Law Enforcement
Authorities
engaged
in
tactics
circumvent
Petitioner's
and
procedures
ConstitutionaT
designed
protected
to
rights
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment against unlawful search and
seizure, and whether the State Court determination represented a
decision that is contrary to or an unreasonable application of
clearly established Federal Law?
The instant case is complex because the Commonwealth Courts
/
'
failed to properly administer the totality of the circumstances
test,
for
determining
probable
cause
in
462
U.S.
213
present
any
controlling
informants.
Illinois
V.
Gates,
Commonwealth
Courts
will
not
actions
involving
(1983).
The
legal
priniciples to the facts bearing upon Appellant's constitutional
claims. Therefore, I call for an exercise of power of supervision
of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here
is
why,
in
this
case
a
warrantless
arrest
was
that
was
r
initiated,
and
a
warrantless
search
Warrantless
searchs
are presumed unreasonable- under
Amendment,
unless
the
established
and .well-delineated
search
falls
made
within
exception.
at
time.
the Fourth
a. specifically
Ker
V.
State
of
t - i-u...
California, 374 U.S.
23 (1963). One established exception is a
warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. U.S. V. Watson,
423
U.S.
411
(1976).
Therefore,
the
(13 of 36)
initial
inquiry
in
the
. . -»...
instant case must be whether the warrantless arrest of Appellant
was lawful.
In
order
to
be
constitutionally
valid
under
the
4th
Amendment to the United States Constitution, a warrantless arrest
must be supported by probable cause. Beck V. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89
(1964).
first
Where probable cause
instance,
any
to arrest does
evidence
seized
in
a
not
exist
search
in
the
incident
to
arrest must be suppressed. U.S. V. Campbell, 920 F.2d 793 (U.S.
App.
1991).
It
probable
cause
totality
of
is
well
exists
settled
to
that
justify
the circumstances
a
in
determining
warrantless
must be considered..
whether
arrest,
the
Illinois V.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
The totality of the circumstances test finds its roots in
the opinion of
the United States Supreme Court in Illinois V.
Gates,
213 (1983).
462 U.S.
In Gates,
the Court abandoned the
more stringent test for probable cause, previously established in
Aguilar V. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli V. U.S., 393
U.S. 410 (1969). The Aguilar-Spinelli test was a rigid two-prong
analysis
requiring
a finding of both reliability and basis of
knowledge as two separate prongs. In Gates, the Court concluded
that
in
determining
the
existence
of
probable, cause
a
more
flexible approach was desirable.
In
adhered
Commonwealth V.
to
the
Gates
Gray,
totality
503 A.2d 921
of
the
(1985),
circumstances
this court
test
for
.. -----^tfeterrminlhg^probable cause^tfndeir titer "4th Amehdmerrrr“Tff ■‘add±tibffy;
however,
the court held that Article 1, § 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution is satisfied by the Gates test and embraced it as a
(14 of 36)
matter of Pennsylvania constitutional law.
Under the totality of the circumstances test, probable cause
exists
where
the
facts
and circumstances within
knowledge lare
sufficient
caution
belief
in
the
to
that
warrant
an
a
person
offense
has
the
officer's
of
reasonable
been
or
is
being
committed. Ker V. State of California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963). Mere
suspicion is not a substitute for probable cause. Beck V. Ohio,
379
U.S.
89
(1964).
The
totality
of
the
circumstances
test
dictates that we consider all the relevant facts, when deciding
whether the warrantless arrest was justified by probable cause.
U.S. V. Robertson, 305 F.3d 164 (U.S. App. 2002). Where, as here,
the officers
actions
resulted from information gleaned from a
Confidential
Source,
in determining whether
there was probable
cause, the Confidential Source's veracity, reliability and basis
of knowledge must be assessed. Gates, 462 U.S. at 233, 103 S.Ct.
at 2329, 76 L.Ed.2d. at 545.
In the case sub judice,
Superior
Court,
concluded that,
"The
trial
relying
on
the last reviewing court,
the Pa.
the
Court,
opinion
of
the
Trial
"Appellant's issues merit no relief". Moreover,
court
opinions
comprehensively
dicuss
and properly
dispose of the questions presented. Therefore, we have no need to
restate them".
In the instant case,
assertion
of
Officer
Vasa
the lower courts relied on the bare
Faasuamalie
that
the
Confidential
*~* SbOTed^jyftrVldda^^dtiSiill^'rhTb'fmhtldiT^by'^gta ting,'*th;g~ Cctffiddtiriarl
Source "related that the narcotic transaction was with SINANAN".
See, (Criminal Complaint-Affidavit of Probable Cause, Date Filed
November 4, 2016); See Also, (Preliminary Hearing 12-27-2016 N/T
(15 of 36)
"Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie", pages 20 through 21). Although Officer
Vasa Faasuamalie claimed that there was corroborating VIDEO and
CELL PHONE evidence,
an
exchange
of
there is no record of criminal activity or
drugs
betweerp-
the
Confidential
Source
and
Appellant on VIDEO, nor is there any evidence of any talk about a
drug sale or the set up of a drug sale by CELL PHONE. It is well
settled
that
that
this
Confidential
Source has never been somebody
this TASK FORCE has used in the past.
See,
(Preliminary
Hearing 12-27-2016 N/T "Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie", page 21, lines 1517). Through this investigation on these three (3) dates August
3,
2016,
August
17,
2016,
and
August
31,
2016
that
are
in
question, NO Officer approached or ever came in direct contact
with
Appellant.
Officers
for
paraphernalia,
Therefore,
whether
or
Appellant
Appellant
was
would
NEVER
checked
have
had
by
drugs,
the alleged pre-recorded money on him.
See,
(Preliminary Hearing 12-27-2016 N/T "Dt. Vasa Faasuamalie", page
21, lines 4-14). In other words
there is a blanket assertion by
the police officers as to the Confidential Source's veracity and
reliability with no objective facts lending credibility to the
assertion. For it is well settled in this case that the officers
did
not
see
or
observe
Source and Appellant.
an
See,
exchange
between
the
Confidential
(Preliminary Hearing 12-27-2016 N/T
"Dt. Vasa Faasaumalie", page 20, lines 7-10). They maintain that
they
only
observed
the
Confidential
Source
meeting
with
the
"'^•^““AppeTTShTrr"1 Mbrbovdif p'thgTe^wr-'NO'' ^reSt^ma'def ^ih ~thtr^nTQn-ttt‘ -ofAugust 2016.
The last reviewing court, the Pa. Superior Court memorandum
(16 of 36)
•=-: -• * ..-v
opinion,
in the case sub judice, created there own narrative by
implying,
"officers
observed
Appellant
sell
confidential informant during each controlled buy",
cocaine
to
therefore,
V
insinuating corroboration was established for probable cause. It
is well settled that this is not the case.
Due
to
numerous
discrepancies
in
facts
presented
in
the
Trial Court's opinion and the Pa. Superior Court, relying on the
opinion of the Trial Court, I believe it necessary to reproduce
the pertinent portions of Officer's testimony.
(l). Preliminary
Hearing,
December
27,
2016,
N/T
"Dt.
Vasa
Faasuamalie", pages 19 through 22:
Q) Is there video surveillance and would it be available at the
Common Pleas ievel?
A) Yes.
Q) And you did maintain that there was somebody that did surveil
the C.S. when he was in the store, correct?
A) That's correct.
THE COURT: And will that person be available to testify in the
future?
DETECTIVE FAASUAMALIE: Yes.
BY MR. DRISCOLE:
Q) And they maintain that they saw the exchange between the C.S.
and Mr. Sinanan, is that correct?
A) They maintain that they observed Mr. Sinanan meeting with the
rt.it
‘C.'ST.
Q) At that time, on the dates between August 1st and August 3rd,
an arrest was not made on Mr. Sinanan, is that correct?
(17 of 36)
Jij.fei.sr
A) That's correct.
Q) So there would not be any evidence that he had any prerecorded
money on him at that time, is that correct?
A) Say that again, please*.
*
Q) There's no evidence that Mr.
Sinanan had prerecorded money,
correct, direct evidence?
A) No, no
not unless we arrested him at that time.
I couldn't
answer that question.
Q) And the same goes
for the August 17th and
the August 31st
controlled buy, Mr. Sinanan was not arrested at those times, is
that correct?
A) That's correct.
Q) Through this investigation on these three dates that are in
question,
no
Officers
ever
came
in
direct
contact
with
Mr.
Sinanan, is that correct?
A) That's correct.
Q) So Mr. Sinanan was never checked himself for whether he would
have had drugs, paraphernalia, or prerecorded money on him?
A) Not in each of those incidences, no.
Q)
So
any
direct
communication
with
Mr.
Sinanan
was
by
the
confidential informant, correct?
A) Correct.
Q) And
is
this confidential informant somebody
that
this Task
via
telephone
Force has used in the past?
'“^wy^NoT"..
Q)
Now,
all
three
purchases
were
conversation, is that correct?
(18 of 36)
set
up
A) That's correct.
Q) And it was using the same number?
A) Correct.
' Q) Were you able to verify whether that number was in fact Mr.
• Sinanan's number?
A) Yes, and I also have that cell phone.
Q) And during those conversations, were you able to listen to see
whether or not there was any talk about a sale or the set up of a
sale?
A) It depended on the conversation at the time, the conversation
was going on. There were text messages, too, I believe.
Q) And that phone would be available to us through the discovery
process, and any of those text messages?
A) Correct.
(2)
Suppression
Hearing,
June
14,
2017,
N/T
"Dt.
Vasa
Faasuamalie", page 92 lines 10-21 and page 94 lines 1-16:
Q)
Okay.
At
the
time
of
Mr.
Sinanan's
arrest,
you
seized
a
telephone from him, I believe, correct?
A) Correct.
Q) And in all the confidential source arranged purchases, there
was .a
phone
number,
484-425-9526;
was
it
the
same
phone
you
seized from him?
A) It was the same number that was utilized by the informant.
-
'.ZT'.
‘
■-
.11.
3i
*:
if...
A) But I believe the hardware was different.
NOTEWORTHY: No cell phone evidence was ever produced in this case
outside
of
a
phone
number
(no
text
(19 of 36)
messages
or
recorded
text
messages
from
the
Confidential
Source's
phone
showing
Appellant's phone number or recorded conversations).
page 94 lines 1-16
Q) Okay. Is there’-any video surveillance or video record of any
of the confidential buys that we talked about previously here?
A) There is store surveillance.
Q) Okay. Based on the location where the transaction occurred?
A) Correct.
Q) And you have that in your possession?
A) Yes.
Q) Can you clearly identify Mr. Sinanan as one of the individuals
involved in the transaction?
A)
I can clearly identify Mr.
Sinanan entering
the store. And
during the same time frame, we were conducting surveillance on
the exterior of the store.
COMPARE: This After Discovered Evidence Filed When Discovered,
(3) Forfeiture Hearing, March 13, [2017](correct date is [2018]),
N/T "Dt. Brent Lear", pages 48 through 49:
Q) So, what I'm saying is from your recollection of what happened
on
this video
was
there any criminal
activity
taped
on
this
video that gives it substance other than contact between the two
individuals?
A) No.
.
; . -- <r.
t
- *'Q)- So;
there’^was no Wrmllial^^activrty- ‘&¥ich hb"1hand,“T6'*lTAntr?i-'No ^
drugs on this video, right? I'm asking. I'm trying to make that
clear.
(20 of 36)
A) There were no hand to hands on the video.
Q) So, the video was basically just used for contact? The purpose
of it was to show contact between the two individuals?
A) To show that you guys met, correct. *Q) Right. So that's it. And then, also, I remember from testimony
that you said that you were also brought into the store and you
was there to witness it physically with you?
You're the only one that was in the store when this occurred
on these two different occasions as far as the store, correct?
A) Correct.
Q) Okay. Now, when you were there did you see anything as far as
illegal
contact
or hand
to hand or drugs being passed off or
anything like that? Since we don't have the video to prove any of
that. Did you see it?
A) I did not.
NOTEWORTHY:
In determining the existence of probable cause the .
Courts may only concern themselves with what
reason
to believe
at
which
took place
over
the
time
sixty
the officers had
of
the
arrest without warrant,
(60)
days
after alleged criminal
activity in the instant case. Johnson V. U.S, 333 U.S. 10 (1948).
As the Court said in U.S. V. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581 (1948), "a search
is not to be made legal by what it turns up. In law it is good or
bad when it starts and does not change character from what is dug
up subsequently", (emphasis added).
L.Ed.2d at 545 - I do not believe that an assertion by a police
officer as to an informant's reliability with no objective facts
(21 of 36)
to substantiate his assertion, is sufficient to support a finding
of probable cause.
Moreover,
the
sufficient*- basis
hearsay
of
in
this
knowledge
to
case
does
support
not
disclose
the police
a
officer's
belief that a crime had been or was being committed at the time
of the warrantless arrest over sixty (60) days later. The only
assertion that the Confidential Source made relevant to his basis
of
knowledge
was
that,
"the
narcotics
transaction
was
with
Appellant", which was only alleged in the month of August 2016.
However,
given
the
dearth
statement
is
likewise
of
specifics
insufficient
to
on
form
this
the
point
basis
this
for
a
warrantless arrest on November 4, 2016.
There was no
assertion
that
this
Confidential
Source had
provided information leading to any prior narcotics arrest. Which
goes
against
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
test
for
determining probable cause under the U.S. 4th Amend, and Pa. Art.
1, § 8 constitutions. Illinois V. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
not
Based on the above,
the Confidential Source's hearsay did
provide
officers
the
police
with
sufficient
facts
and
circumstances to warrant the inference that an offense had been
or was being committed at
the
time of
the warrantless arrest.
Beck V. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964). Where the reliability of the
informant is not established,
surrounding
the
hearsay
then the facts and circumstances
must
provide
sufficient
indicia
of
TenaM'Urty—_______
Williams,
407
U.S.
143
(1972).
The
instant
case
provided
a
situation where the police needed to "further investigate" before
(22 of 36)
arresting
the
Appellant,
as
the
hearsay
lacked
indicia
of
reliability. Since the totality of circumstances test is not met
by
the Confidential
Source's hearsay,
standing alone,
we will
examine whether there was sufficient corroboration of the hearsay
by the police to establish probable cause.
Corroboration
independent
of
an
L.Ed.2d
at
550.
sufficient
tip with
103
76
provide
informant's
reliability to an otherwise unreliable tip. Gates, at 241,
2334,
can
of
of
at
work
details
indicia
S.Ct.
police
the
Police
officers
making
a
warrantless arrest may rely on an informant's hearsay even where
they
do
not
personally
observe
the
activity,
so
long
as
the
informant's hearsay is reasonably corroborated by other matters
within the officer's knowledge. Id. at 242, 103 S.Ct. at 2334, 76
L.Ed.2d at 550; Alabama V. White, 496 U.S.
325 (1990).
In the
classic corroboration case, Draper V. U.S., 358 U.S. 307 (1959),
an
informant
named
Hereford
supplied
police
officers
with
information that Draper would be arriving on a train from Denver
on either the morning of December 8th or 9th with drugs in his
possession.
Draper,
at
309,
79
S.Ct.
at
331.
Hereford
also
provided the police with a physical description of Draper. The
Court held that when the police "had personally verified every
facet of the information given to him by Hereford" except for the
fact whether Draper actually possessed drugs, they could presume
the only uncorroborated fact-that Draper was carrying drugs would
the corroboration of every facet of the information supplied by
the informant gave the officer 'reasonable grounds
Since the time of Draper and Gates
(23 of 36)
to arrest.
the Court has expanded
upon what it intended by "corroboration of detailed and accurate
predictions" first introduced in Gates. See, U.S. V. Gilbert, 45
F.3d 1163,
1167 (7th Cir. 1995); U.S. V. Miller, 925 F.2d 695,
699-700 (4th Cir. 1991); and U.S. V. Fixen, 780 F.2d- 1434, 1438
(9th
Cir.
hearsay,
1986).
it
is
When
police
important
are
that
relying
on
an
informant's
the hearsay provide
information
that demonstrates "inside information" a special familiarity with
the defendant's affairs.
White at 332,
L.Ed.2d
at
tip provides
inside
police
corroboration
this
information
310.
If
the
of
inside
110 S.Ct.
at 2417,
110
information,
then
can
impart
additional reliability to the hearsay. White at 331, 110 S.Ct. at
2416, 110 L.Ed.2d at 309; Gates, at 245-246, 103 S.Ct. at 23352336,
76 L.Ed.2d at 551-552. If the facts that are supplied by
the hearsay are no more than those easily obtained, then the fact
that
the police corroborated them is of no moment.
where
the
special
facts
provide
familiarity
inside
with
a
information,
defendant's
It is only
which represent
affairs
that
a
police
corroboration of the information imparts indicia of reliability
to
the hearsay
police
to
support a
corroboration
of
an
finding of
probable
cause.
Thus >
informant's
hearsay
enhances
the
indicia of reliability and thereby strengthens the determination
that the facts and circumstances surrounding the hearsay warrant
a finding of probable cause.
The police officers in the instant case did not assert that
either prior to his arrest in August 2016 or at the time of his
arrest
on
November
4,
2016.
Nor
(24 of 36)
do
they
assert
that
they
personally observed any drug transactions in the month of August
2016 or any other suspicious circumstances that if taken together
■with the Confidential Source's hearsay might constitute probable
for an arrest without warrant on November 4, 2016. In sum,
cause
the record is devoid of facts that would support a finding that
Source's
Confidential
the
corroborated
by
other
unsubstantiated
evidence
gathered
by
hearsay
the
was
arresting
officers.
2)
The
last
issue
presented
for
whether
the
State's
determination
this
in
Writ
this
of
Certiorari
matter
is
represent
a
decision that will permit Law Enforcement Authorities to embark
on policy and procedure that will routinely violate a citizen's
Fourth Amendment right?
The
Fourth
Amendment
prohibits
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures, U.S. Const, amend. IV. Generally, for a seizure to be
reasonable under
Z''-
the Fourth Amendment,
it
must be
effectuated
with a warrant based on probable cause. U.S. V. Robertson, 305
F.3d 164,
167 (3rd Cir.
2002). However, under the exception to
the warrant requirement established in Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,
88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), "an officer may, consistent
with the Fourth Amendment,
when
the
officer has
conduct a brief,
a reasonable,
investigatory stop
articulable
suspicion
that
Wfmrnia*T' ’§■£‘€1 vi“ty"~lr “fff86t^'"^lTrir!bT§^VT~^agdlb^"J 52^8^‘.•S,.-“iff ;
123,
120
obtained
S.Ct.
673,
pursuant
to
145
an
L.Ed.2d
570
investigatory
(25 of 36)
(2000).
stop
"Any
(also
evidence
known
as
a
'Terry
Stop'
or
a
'Stop
exception must be
and
Frisk')
suppressed as
that does not meet
fruit of
the poisonous
this
tree."
U.S. V. Brown, 448 F.3d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2006)(citing Wong Sun
* V.
U.S.,
371
U.S.
471,
487-88,
83
S.Ct.
407,* 9 L.Ed.2d
441
(1963).
In Wharton's Criminal Procedure (lOth Ed.) section 36, pages
74, 75, we find the following pertinent language: "In those cases
where the offense is past, the rule is different and an officer
may
not
apprehend
outrageous
crimes,
the
offender
crimes
of
the
however,
it
is
without
felony
the
a warrant,
type.
In
the
of
the
officers
duty
except
cases
in
of
such
to
begin
immediately after notice the pursuit of the person charged with
the offense, provided only that there be at the time reasonable
grounds of suspicion."
In the instant case the determination was made by a police
officer
cause
determination by a police .officer making a warrantless
arrest
the
a
"\
probable
lacks
performing
procedural
warrantless
safeguard
arrest.
that
a
A
neutral
and
detached
magistrate can impart to any determination of probable cause. The
totality of the circumstances standard is the same whether used
for
determining
the
existence
of
probable
cause
for
a
magistrate's issuance of a search warrant or a police officer's
determination
Nonetheless,
that
a
warrantless
arrest
is
justified.
any
analysis
of
the
relevant
circumstances
more
reliable
safeguard
against
improper
searches
hurried
judgment
of
enforcement
a
a
law
(26 of 36)
than
officer engaged
in
must
the
the
often competitive
enterprise of
ferreting out crime."
U. S.
V.
Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
In
the
instant
case,
police
arrived
at
the
Petitioner's
residence, over sixty (60) day's after they received the hearsay,
only to find that the Petitioner was leaving his residence for
work (JOB).
was
not
Furthermore,
engaged
in
any
at the time of the arrest,
criminal
activity,
and
Petitioner
there
was
no
alleged criminal activity continued up to or about that time.
Due to misrepresented facts from day of arrest on November
4,
2016.
I
believe
it
necessary
to
reproduce
the
pertinent
portions of DEA Special Agent Robertjohn Wohlbach's testimony.
Suppression Hearing 6-14-2017 N/T "Robertjohn Wohlbach DEA", page
45 lines 20-25 with page 46 lines 1-20; and page 64 lines 2-10:
page 45 lines 20-25 with page 46 lines 1-20
Q) Okay.
Let's go back to
the date in question.
What was
the
operation for the day at Mr. Sinanan's residence?
A) The day he was arrested?
Q) Yes.
A) That was November 4th, 2017. Basically, the operation was to
sit on his house, wait to see him, he comes out or comes home or
whatever; and just approach him. We didn't have an arrest warrant
or search warrant at the time.
A) The plan was -- what Task Force Officer Faasuamalie likes to
do, he didn't charge him with anything. So no arrest warrant, but
(27 of 36)
always gives them an opportunity to meet up with him and see if
he is willing to cooperate and see where that person is getting
try to work out the chain and try to figure out where
their
that person is getting it from.
K..
So he figured we would just approach him and see if he wants
I wasn't there for that
to cooperate. And Vasa approached him;
conversation, but he didn't want to cooperate.
Q) Okay. Just for the record, this is after the three controlled
purchases; is that correct?
A) That's correct.
page 64 lines 2-10
Q) Why did you pick November 4th? Did you go to arrest him? Was
there surveillance on the 3rd, and on the 2nd, on the 1st? What
was the purpose?
A)
No,
not
that
I
remember.
I just
think Task Force Officer
Faasamalie picked that day, and hopefully, we would see him Mr.
Sinanan.
Q) Did you have any tip from anybody?
A) That day, no.
Therefore,
taking
steps
the
to
propriety
seize
of
Officer
Petitioner
on
Vasa
November
Faasuamalie's
4,
2016,
was
unconstitutional, because any refusal to cooperate without more
does
not
furnish
the minimal
level of
objective justification
reea¥^^br^^aeTenfTbn"'bF'~Wrzufrrc"tefl:y^T:'w0trror^3,912,^'ir:'S,:^'r°
(1968). When an arrest is so timed that it is no more than an
attempt
to circumvent
the warrant requirement,
(28 of 36)
the courts have
held
the
subsequent
Washington,
arrest
or
search
387 F.3d 1060 (U.S.
App.
unlawful.
2004)
See,
U. S.
V.
or Coolidge V. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S., at 469-471 (1971).
In th’e Instant case Petitioner was sacrificed by officers on
\
'November 4,
Petitioner
before
2016,
is
they
based on a hunch or a gut feeling that
dirty by arresting and
legally had grounds
searching
to do
so.
the
the Petitioner
These officers feel
that the result of the search will justify the police activity.
U.S. V.
Johnson,
427 F.3d 1053
(U.S. App.
2005). However,
the
courts have made it quite clear that a bad arrest or a bad search
cannot be salvaged or corrected by what the officer recovers from
the
suspect.
Petitioner
without
U.S.
was
V.
DiRe,
transported
probable cause or
332
U.S.
581
involuntarily
the
limited
(1948).
to
a
Therefore,
police
intrusion of
station
reasonable
suspicion to link Petitioner with criminal activity on November
4, 2016. Dunaway V. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979).
Where
informant's
police
are
acting
solely
on
hearsay
and
the
veracity
and
the
basis
of
an
reliability
of
the
informant is not established by objective facts, it is essential
that the hearsay provide adequate indication that the informant
has actual knowledge that criminal conduct is occurring or has
occurred at
the
time
the warrantless
arrest
is made.
U.S.
V.
Robertson, 305 F.3d 164 (U.S. App. 2002).
Moreover,
the totality of the circumstances standard is the
“^~raW'im‘etTrer“We^‘‘ifS^deTerm^hX^r'rxITrrhcT^6T'T^6^1-”^''‘cSU§e^for
a
magistrate's
issuance
of
a
search warrant
or
a
police
officer's determination that a warrantless arrest is justified.
(29 of 36)
U.S. V. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
In
the
case
Supreme
Court
report
to
of
held
Commonwealth
that,
"The
the magistrate was
V.
Eazer,
criminal
act
fewo'-months old,
the
in
Pennsylvania
the
officer's
and thus was too
remote in time to provide the requisite existing probable cause
necessary
for
presence
of
the
issuance
evidence
of
of
a
search warrant.
criminal
activity
at
Further
the
some prior time
would not support a finding of probable cause as of the date the
warrant was issued unless
it also had shown that the criminal
activity continued up to or about that time." Com. V. Eazer, 312
A.2d 398 (Pa. 1973).
In the case of Commonwealth V. Melendez,
1
:
Supreme Court held that,
warrantless
seizures
permissible.
The
;
the Pennsylvania
;
"There are two circumstances
of
a
person
are
in which
constitutionally
first is where police have probable cause
to
believe that a crime is being or is about to be committed. The
second is that a limited seizure may be effected where there is a
reasonable
police
belief
Therefore,
unless
police
that
have
criminal
specific
activity
and
is
afoot.
articulable
facts
which lead them to suspect criminal activity, they may not stop
and search any person without a warrant." Com. V. Melendez, 676
A.2d 226
(Pa.
police have
1996).
In the case of a warrantless arrest,
the burden of demonstrating its validity.
the
Beck V.
Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964).
corroboration
reliability
to
to
impart
the
additional
Confidential
indicia
Source's
(30 of 36)
of
veracity
hearsay,
the
and
police
officers did not have probable cause to believe that a crime had
been committed or was being committed at the time of Petitioner's
arrest on November 4, 2016. The Trial Court made no findings of
fadts* in
the
instant
conclusory statement:
case.
The
trial
Judge
simply made
a
"The record and testimony established at
trial clearly established that probable cause existed to support
the Defendant's warrantless arrest." The Court of Appeals merely
concluded, "Appelant's issues merit no relief."
Those,
then,
who
controvert
the
principle,
that
the
Constitution is to be considered, in Court, as a paramount law,
are
reduced
close
their
[passed
by
to
the
eyes
necessity
on. the
Congress].
of
maintaining
Constitution,
This
doctrine
and
that
see
Courts must
only
the
law
the
very
rather
than
would
subvert
making
law
foundation of all written Constitutions.
When
that
happens,
the
Court
representing the law.
(31 of 36)
is
CONCLUSION
In the instant case the arrest here was illegal, pursuant .to
the
totality
of
the
circumstances
inquiry
the
under
Fourth
Amendment of the United "States Constitution established by Gates
and
adopted
applicable
Article
by
the ' Commonwealth
to
the
question
§
8
of
1,
the
of
Court
in
Gray,
illegality
of
the arrest
under
as
being
Pennsylvania
is
Constitution
equally
previously held that the Gates test is consistent with Article 1,
§ 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See, Gray, 509 Pa. at 488,
503 A.2d at 921.
Accordingly, the warrantless arrest in the instant case was
not supported by probable cause.
If. we were to hold otherwise,
such a
finding would wreak havoc on
Fourth
Amendment
was
created
searches' and seizures.
to
protect
Ohio,
Terry V.
the Fourth Amendment.
against
392 U.S.
The
unreasonable
1,
9,
88 S.Ct.
1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). A finding of probable cause in the
instant
case,
would amount
to
a
finding
of
probable
cause
to
arrest any person on the street by the mere assertion of a police
officer
that
a
confidential
source
told
him
this
particular
individual was dealing drugs and that the confidential source was
reliable.
This
type
of
unsubstantiated
seizure was
the
exact
result that the probable cause standard was intended to avoid.
Brinegar V. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879
(1949).
"These
long
prevailing
standards
seek
to
safeguard
citizens
from rash and unreasonable Interferences with privacy
and from unfounded charges of crime." Brinegar, at 176, 69 S.Ct.
1302
(emphasis added).
We cannot
condone arrests
(32 of 36)
based
solely
upon
the bald assertions by an
informant not proved reliable,
without any consideration of whether there is a fair probability
that the person arrested actually committed or was in the process
^
*
of committing a crime.
If,
instead
of
arresting
the
Petitioner
in
error,
the
officer had presented all the facts within his knowledge and all
the
information
issue
a
at
warrant
hand. to
of
a
arrest
magistrate,
for
the
magistrate would hold the Petitioner
crime before another
tribunal;
no magistrate would
Petitioner
in error
in
error;
no
to answer for a
no. grand jury would indite;
no
court would submit the case to a jury; and, if the officer were
sued
for
false
imprisonment,
no court would instruct
that
the
arrest was justified, assuming all the foregoing testimony to be
true.
If
we
are
correct
in
these conclusions,
and we
see no
•\
escape from them,
the
alleged
the arrest was without authority of law, and
property
wrongfully
seized was
concluded
that
not
admissible
in
Commonwealth has
not
evidence.
Moreover,
having
the
established probable cause for the arrest, we must conclude that
the evidence
seized as a result of
the warrantless
search of
Petitioner incident to his arrest must be suppressed.
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Sinanan respectfully request
this Honorable Court to reverse and remand the above-captioned
case with instructions to the trial court to grant Mr. Sinanan's
*■ .-a. 'ij' — - cs sat
j
suppression^ motion
alternative,
Honorable
Mr.
Court
or"
to' vacate
Sinanan
grant
any
his'~ convict ions1. "“Iri ~ tHe
respectfully
requests
other
that
relief
(33 of 36)
law
that
and
this
justice
require.
Respectfully Submitted,
•k
Allan Leslie Sinanan Jr. (Pro-Se)
Si
DATE:
attire of Petitioner
1/15/2020
FILE COPY
v
r.v'c
\
(34 of 36)
•— •- - -
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.