J-S67021-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN SCHEFFLER
Appellant No. 833 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on January 29, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-48-CR-0002423-2015 & CP-48-CR-0002507-
2015
BEFORE: ELLIOT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J. FILED OCTOBER 11, 2016
John Scheffler appeals from the judgment of sentence to serve two
and one-half to five years’ incarceration plus $17,861.00 restitution, entered
on January 29, 2016, after he pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary,
following the denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence. We affirm.
At the pre-trial hearing in this matter, the parties stipulated to the
following facts. In 2014, police conducted an investigation that implicated
Appellant in a string of burglaries in Northampton County. During this
investigation, Appellant’s co-conspirator signed a written statement
admitting that she and Appellant burglarized two residences in Forks
Township. (Case No. 2507-2015). Several witnesses also identified
Appellant’s car, license plate, and physical build, implicating him in other
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S67021-16
burglaries in Williams Township and Upper Mount Bethel Township. (Case
No. 2423-2015). In addition, police found a cigarette butt at one of the
burglarized residences. Police submitted the cigarette butt for DNA testing
to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) in an attempt to identify the
DNA donor.
Based on the CODIS results, Pennsylvania Police sought a New Jersey
warrant to obtain a DNA sample from Appellant who was incarcerated in
Warren County, New Jersey at the time.1 A Pennsylvania state trooper
prepared an affidavit to secure a warrant. In March 2015, the Warren
County prosecutor submitted the affidavit to the Honorable Robert B. Reed
of the Superior Court of New Jersey, who determined the affidavit to have
probable cause. Judge Reed issued a warrant, authorizing the New Jersey
police to take buccal swabs from Appellant.2 The DNA test results confirmed
that Appellant’s DNA matched the evidence found on the cigarette butt at
the crime scene in Pennsylvania.
In June 2015, the Commonwealth brought charges against Appellant
for Case Nos. 2507-2015 and 2423-2015 in a consolidated case. In August
2015, Appellant pleaded guilty but withdrew his guilty plea in October 2015.
____________________________________________
1
In October 2014, Appellant pleaded guilty to burglaries committed in 2011,
2012, and 2013 in New Jersey.
2
A Pennsylvania officer accompanied a New Jersey officer to the Warren
County jail to obtain the DNA sample.
-2-
J-S67021-16
In January 2016, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the DNA results. The
trial court denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the DNA evidence. On the
same day, Appellant agreed to plead guilty to two counts of burglary. See
18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a)(2). Appellant specifically preserved his right to
challenge the trial court’s suppression ruling. Appellant filed a timely
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In March 2016, the trial court filed its opinion
relying on its January 2016 opinion.
Appellant presents one question on appeal.
1. Should DNA evidence taken subject to a warrant in New
Jersey at the request of the Pennsylvania State Police, based
solely on the facts occurring in Pennsylvania, and used solely for
prosecution in Pennsylvania be suppressed as gained
constitutionality?
Appellant’s Brief at 7.
As the Commonwealth prevailed below, we review the denial of
Appellant’s motion to suppress pursuant to the following standard:
[W]e may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so
much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted
when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the
record supports the factual findings of the trial court, we are
bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal
conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 907 A.2d 540, 542 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831, 842 (Pa. 2003)). In
this case, “we need only determine whether the application for the search
warrant and accompanying affidavit was sufficient to establish probable
-3-
J-S67021-16
cause for the search warrant under Pennsylvania law.” Commonwealth v.
Dennis, 618 A.2d 972, 980 (Pa. Super. 1992) (citations omitted).
Notably, Appellant failed to, inter alia, support his claim with citation
to relevant authority, develop the legal issue, and challenge the warrant in a
meaningful way, risking waiver on both arguments. See McEwing v. Lititz
Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639, 647 (Pa. Super. 2013).3 Notwithstanding,
Appellant’s failure to cite relevant legal authority and develop the issue has
not hindered our review of his appeal.
First, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his
motion to suppress DNA evidence because it was taken “solely for the
purpose of prosecution in Pennsylvania” without a warrant issued by a
Pennsylvania court. Appellant’s Brief at 8. Appellant contends that
Pennsylvania police exceeded their authority when they obtained a warrant
to take Appellant’s DNA sample while Appellant was incarcerated in New
Jersey. Appellant’s argument is without merit.
The relevant Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure states: “[a]
search warrant may be issued by any issuing authority within the judicial
____________________________________________
3
Appellant cites cases that do not support his position, including: Camara
v. S.F. Mun. Ct., 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967) (establishing that Fourth
Amendment warrant requirement applies to searches of private dwellings for
suspected violations of California housing code); New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469
U.S. 325 (1985) (establishing a reasonableness standard for warrantless
searches in a public school setting based on the substantial interest in
maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds).
-4-
J-S67021-16
district wherein is located either the person or place to be searched.” See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 200. This statute plainly authorizes Pennsylvania courts to
issue a warrant where it has jurisdiction over “the place or person to be
searched.” Id. It follows that police officers must obtain warrants from the
jurisdiction where the person, places, or effects to be searched or seized are
located. See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Ryan, 400 A.2d 1264, 1268
(Pa. 1979) (concluding that failure to recognize valid warrants issued in the
appropriate jurisdiction would lead to illogical results because judges’
authority to issue warrants is limited to the confines of their judicial district).
Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey have adopted the same “totality of
circumstances test” for evaluating probable cause. See Dennis, 618 A.2d
at 616-17 & n.6 (citing State v. Novembrino, 519 A.2d 820 (N.J. 1985)).4
Officers may use evidence seized pursuant to a warrant obtained through
the cooperation among officers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in
Pennsylvania proceedings. See Commonwealth v. Corbo, 440 A.2d 1213,
1215 (Pa. 1980).
In this case, Pennsylvania Police needed to work with officials outside
of Pennsylvania because Appellant was incarcerated New Jersey at the time.
____________________________________________
4
New Jersey has “consistently characterized probable cause as a common-
sense practical standard for determining the validity of a search warrant.”
Novembrino, 519 A.2d at 835; see also State v. Kasabucki, 244 A.2d
101, 116 (N.J. 1987) (balancing of government need for enforcement of
criminal law against citizens’ privacy right).
-5-
J-S67021-16
The assistance of a New Jersey police officer was necessary to execute the
warrant. See Commonwealth v. Kunkel, 408 A.2d 475, 476-77 (Pa.
Super. 1978) (motion to suppress reversed: warrant was not defective just
because police officers were acting beyond the scope of their jurisdiction).5
Appellant’s suggestion that “Pennsylvania Courts have imposed higher
standards on searches and seizures” than New Jersey courts also fails.
Appellant’s Brief at 10. Based on Dennis, the trial court did not err in
concluding that the New Jersey warrant satisfied the standards for obtaining
a warrant in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was correct,
“under the Pennsylvania standard or the New Jersey Standard, the search
warrant was supported by sufficient probable cause.” Trial Court Opinion,
01/29/2016, at 3.
Appellant’s second argument maintains that he had “no way to
challenge the efficacy of the warrant in Pennsylvania Court.” Appellant’s
Brief at 8. However, his argument fails because it is the challenge to the
warrant that is the very basis of his appeal. See Commonwealth v.
Hallowell, 383 A.2d 909, 912 (Pa. 1978) (holding that Appellant was
entitled to rehearing on suppression motion because he did not know about
the evidence until trial and “the opportunity did not previously exist” to
____________________________________________
5
“[T]he Rules of Criminal Procedure do not prescribe procedures for the
delivery of the warrant from the issuing magistrate to the executing officer,
nor do we believe that a prescription is necessary.” Kunkel 408 A.2d at 477.
-6-
J-S67021-16
challenge it).6 Appellant had notice when the evidence was seized that a
Pennsylvania police officer was present when the New Jersey officer took the
DNA sample and that the Commonwealth would use the DNA evidence in the
Pennsylvania proceeding. Unlike in Hallowell, Appellant had an opportunity
to challenge the warrant in his pretrial motion to suppress the DNA
evidence. Accordingly, Appellant’s second argument is devoid of merit.
Even if Appellant had raised the argument that the warrant lacked
probable cause, we hold that the warrant and the evidence obtained
therefrom were admissible in the Pennsylvania proceedings. 7 For the
reasons above, we discern no error in the trial court’s decision to deny
Appellant’s pretrial motion. Accordingly, he is entitled to no relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Ford Elliot, P.J.E. Joins the Memorandum.
____________________________________________
6
Contrastingly, a defendant may have grounds for suppression if he did not
know about the evidence before trial. See Hallowell, 383 A.2d at 912.
7
Appellant does not challenge whether there was probable cause for the
New Jersey court to issue the warrant, failing to address Dennis, 618 A.2d
at 980. “Probable cause exists when an officer has knowledge of sufficient
facts and circumstances, gained through trustworthy information, to warrant
a prudent man to believe that the person seized has committed a crime.”
See Commonwealth v. Kohl, 615 A.2d 308, 315 (Pa. 1992). The affidavit
established probable cause through: (1) information obtained by the Police
from a co-defendant/co-conspirator, and (2) Appellant’s DNA found on a
cigarette butt found at one of the burglarized residences.
-7-
J-S67021-16
Stevens, P.J.E. Concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/11/2016
-8-
Com. v. Scheffler, J.
Combined Opinion