Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael Cody … N_59_27.pdf · Scott M. Wilhelm ZONE II DELEGATES...

(USPS 395-280)VOL. LIX EASTON, PA July 7, 2016 NO. 27

CONTENTS

INSERT: Yellow: 1. 2016 Calendar 2. 2016 Summer Outing 3. “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 and the Important Update to Social Security Claiming Strategies”

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or any other means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

NOTICE TO THE BAR...Summer Outing—July 21, 2016Registration form inside.

* * * * * * * *Be advised the phone number for the Northampton County Courthouse has been

changed to 610-829-6500.The phone number for Court Administration has been changed to 610-829-6700.

Audit—Orphans' Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Bar News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Estate and Trust Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Limited Liability Company Notice . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Location of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Notice of Nonprofit Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Paralegal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Real Estate Offering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael Cody Chorney, Defendant

2

Northampton County ReporterAttorney Referral & Information Service

155 South Ninth Street, P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18042

Phone (610) 258-6333 Fax (610) 258-8715E-mail: [email protected]

PBA (800) 932-0311—PBI (800) 932-4637

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION2016 BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS

Alyssa Lopiano-Reilly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PresidentMichael P. Shay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President-ElectDaniel M. O’Donnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice PresidentLisa M. Spitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TreasurerRobert Eyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SecretaryAbraham P. Kassis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past President

BOARD OF GOVERNORSDavid M. Backenstoe

Paul J. HarakRebecca Kulik

Maura Zajac McGuireSteven B. Molder

Michael A. Santanasto Scott M. Wilhelm

ZONE II DELEGATESMichael C. Deschler Jonathan M. Huerta Abraham P. KassisRichard P. Kovacs

Joel M. Scheer

BAR ASSOCIATION STAFFMary Beth Leeson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive DirectorPatti A. Gober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AccountingHeather Rizzotto-Stefanik . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal JournalChristen T. Borso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney ReferralDeborah J. Flanagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney Referral

The Northampton County Reporter will be published every Thursday by the Northampton County Bar Association, 155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399. All legal notices relating to the business of the county, are required by rule of Court, to be published in this Journal. All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the advertiser. Neither the Law Reporter nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes to content.

Subscription Price—$75.00 per year.Periodical Postage Paid at Easton, PA and additional office.Postmaster: Send all communications and address changes to:

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER155 South Ninth St., Easton, PA 18042-4399

Telephone (610) 258-6333 FAX (610) 258-8715Ralph J. Bellafatto, Esquire

Editor

3

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. ~ John F. Kennedy

NOTICE TO NCBA MEMBERS – BAR NEWS

2016-2017 Northampton County Directory of AttorneysThe new NCBA directories have been distributed.Additional directories may be purchased for your office staff for $5.00

each. Contact the NCBA office.

Summer OutingThursday, July 21, 2016Registration form inside.

2016 Bench Bar ConferenceOctober 6-8, 2016Hyatt Regency, Chesapeake Bay Golf Resort, Spa and MarinaCambridge, Maryland.

Barristers BoastHave you received an honor or award for community work? Do you have

a new grandchild? Have you heard good news about one of your NCBA colleagues that should be shared?

Good news items about fellow members should be sent to: [email protected].

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER Vol. 59 No. 27 7/7/2016

4

ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICESNotice is hereby given that, in the

estates of the decedents set forth below, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of administration to the persons named. Notice is also hereby given of the existence of the trusts of the deceased settlors set forth below for whom no personal representatives have been appointed within 90 days of death. All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts are requested to make known the same, and all persons indebted to said estates or trusts are requested to make payment, without delay, to the executors or administrators or trustees or to their attorneys named below.

FIRST PUBLICATIONBAUDER, DAVID a/k/a DAVID O.

BAUDER a/k/a DAVID ORVAL BAUDER, dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAAdministratrix: Joanne Bauder c/o Mark P. Albright, Esquire, 403 Main Street, Hellertown, PA 18055-1721.Attorney: Mark P. Albright, Esquire, 403 Main Street, Heller-town, PA 18055-1721

BEAVER, IRA J. a/k/a IRA JAMES BEAVER a/k/a IRA BEAVER, dec’d.Late of W-35 Walnutport Mobile Home Court, Walnutport, North-ampton County, PAAdministratrix C.T.A.: Darlene Marie Dugan, 235 Bartholomew Drive, Palmerton, PA 18071Attorneys: Joshua D. Shulman, Esquire, Shulman & Shabbick, 1935 Center Street, Northamp-ton, PA 18067

D’AMICO, CATHERINE P., dec’d.Late of Nazareth, Northampton County, PAExecutor: John A. D’Amico, Sr. c/o R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton St., Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton St., Suite 502, Allentown, PA 18101

EVANS, PAUL S., JR. a/k/a PAUL S. EVANS, dec’d.Late of Northampton, Northamp-ton County, PAExecutrix: Carla A. Green c/o The Roth Law Firm, 123 North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102Attorneys: Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The Roth Law Firm, 123 North Fifth Street, Allentown, PA 18102

FEDIRKO, LORRAINE, dec’d.Late of Pen Argyl, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Glenn Fedirko, 3561 Crespi Court, Pleasanton, CA 94566

HAIDUK, WILLIAM, dec’d.Late of Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Diane HaidukA t t o r n e y : G e o f f r e y S . Wor th ing t on , Esqu i r e , Merchants Plaza, P.O. Box 536, Tannersville, PA 18372-0536

SANTANA, JEFFREY A., dec’d.Late of the Township of East Allen, Northampton County, PAAdministrator: Erik Jeffrey Santana c/o Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020


5

CRANE, CAROL B., dec’d.Late of the Township of Bushkill, North ampton County, PAExecutor: William F. Crane, IVAttorneys: McFall, Layman & Jordan, P.C., Attorneys at Law, 134 Broadway, Bangor, PA 18013

DIEHL, MARY EDNA MOHRY a/k/a MARY EDNA M. DIEHL a/k/a MARY E. DIEHL, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Darlene C. Young Ressler, 3292 New Hanover Square Rd., Gilbertsville, PA 19525Attorneys: David L. Horvath, Esquire, Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri, P.C., 712 Monroe Street, Stroudsburg, PA 18360-0511

FRISOLI, GEORGENE A., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Gayle L. Dimmick, CFP, Vice President, KNBT now known as Branch Banking and Trust Company, 645 Hamilton Street, Suite 900, Allentown, PA 18101Attorneys: Robert H. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

KEGLOVITZ, MICHAEL J. a/k/a MICHAEL J. KEGLOVITZ, SR. a/k/a MICHAEL KEGLOVITZ, dec’d.Late of East Allen Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Pamela Ann Hoffner, 5046 Hillside Road, Northamp-ton, PA 18067

Attorney: Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020

SMITH, MARLIN F., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Bangor, Northampton County, PAExecutor: Jeffrey A. Smith c/o John Molnar, Esquire, The Molnar Law Offices, Wind Gap Professional Center, 6697 Sullivan Trail, Wind Gap, PA 18091Attorneys: John Molnar, Esquire, The Molnar Law Offices, Wind Gap Professional Center, 6697 Sullivan Trail, Wind Gap, PA 18091

SECOND PUBLICATIONBEGOVICH, MARTHA A., dec’d.

Late of Hanover Twp., North-ampton County, PAExecutor: Nicholas J. Begovich c/o Susan E. Piette, Esquire, Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin, P.C., 375 Morris Rd., P.O. Box 1479, Lansdale, PA 19446-0773Attorneys: Susan E. Piette, Esquire, Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin, P.C., 375 Morris Rd., P.O. Box 1479, Lansdale, PA 19446-0773

BRANCALE, CAROL F. a/k/a CAROL A. BRANCALE, dec’d.Late of the Township of Forks, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Nancy A. DeFuria c/o Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042


6

Herman Freund & Faul LLC, One West Broad Street, Suite 700, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Kirby G. Upright, Esquire, King Spry Herman Freund & Faul LLC, One West Broad Street, Suite 700, Bethlehem, PA 18018

WIEDER, THEODORE C., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Virginia Ann Bissig, 880 Smith Rd., Parsippany, NJ 07054Attorney: Steven B. Molder, Esquire, 904 Lehigh Street, Easton, PA 18042

THIRD PUBLICATIONANDERSON, PHYLLIS A., dec’d.

Late of the City of Easton, North-ampton County, PAExecutor: David L. Anderson c/o Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299Attorney: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 141 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 299, Nazareth, PA 18064-0299

BRADY, MARY ANN a/k/a MARY ANNE BRADY a/k/a MARY ANN E. BRADY, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Martin M. Brady and Barbara A. Doyle c/o Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorney: Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020

BUTLER, DOROTHY K., dec’d.Late of the Township of Palmer, Northampton County, PA

Attorney: Robert M. Maskrey, Jr., Esquire, 27 North Sixth Street, Stroudsburg, PA 18360

KELLOW, MARGARET A., dec’d.Late of Palmer Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: JoAnn Marie Dischinat c/o Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorney: Vaughn A. Terrinoni, Esquire, 3976 Township Line Road, Bethlehem, PA 18020

MAY, ELEANOR RUTH a/k/a E. RUTH MAY, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Carol A. Antich, 2165 Spyglass Hill, Center Valley, PA 18034Attorney: James J. Holzinger, Esquire, 1216 Linden Street, P.O. Box 1409, Bethlehem, PA 18016

SCHULTZ, CHARLES F. a/k/a CHARLES F. SCHULTZ, III, dec’d.Late of Upper Nazareth Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrices: Lou Ann Bortz, 516 Christine Ann Lane, Nazareth, PA 18064 and Patti S. Schultz, 3518 Neville Way, Nazareth, PA 18064Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064-2083

TRAVERS, EVELYN MARIE, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAPersonal Representative: Scott Robert Akus c/o Kirby G. Upright, Esquire, King Spry


7

Executor: Timothy J. Butler c/o Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042

CAMPBELL, EMMA F., dec’d.Late of the City of Easton, Northampton County, PAAdministrator c.t.a.: Eric M. Campbell c/o Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042

CAMPBELL, PAUL E. a/k/a PAUL E. CAMPBELL, JR., dec’d.Late of the Township of Williams, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Susan E. Campbell c/o Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Theresa Hogan, Esquire, Attorney-at-Law, 340 Spring Garden Street, Easton, PA 18042

CERINO, JOANNE a/k/a JoANNE CERINO, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Roseto, Northampton County, PACo-Executors: Eric M. Cerino and Marc D. Cerino c/o Edward H. Butz, Esquire, Lesavoy Butz & Seitz LLC, 7535 Windsor Drive, Suite 200, Allentown, PA 18195Attorneys: Edward H. Butz, Esquire, Lesavoy Butz & Seitz LLC, 7535 Windsor Drive, Suite 200, Allentown, PA 18195

CLEWELL, JAMES A., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Heller-town, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Graycee Mikolajczyk c/o David M. Backenstoe, Esquire, 148 Main Street, Heller-town, PA 18055Attorney: David M. Backenstoe, Esquire, 148 Main Street, Heller-town, PA 18055

DeGROFF, CATHERINE A. a/k/a CATHERINE ANN DeGROFF, dec’d.Late of Easton, Northampton County, PACo-Executors: William Frasier and Arthur Hulshizer c/o Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Fitzpatrick, Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219Attorneys: Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Fitzpatrick, Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219

GREMBOWICZ, EMMA H., dec’d.Late of Easton, Northampton County, PAExecutrix: Mary Ann Schoeneck c/o Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Fitzpatrick, Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219Attorneys: Karl H. Kline, Esquire, Fitzpatrick, Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA 18034-0219

TRACH, ELEANOR L., dec’d.Late of the Township of Moore, Northampton County, PAExecutors: Shirley M. Kocher, 2698 Kern Road, Danielsville, PA


8

18038-9656, Bruce D. Trach, P.O. Box 332, Saylorsburg, PA 18353-0332 and Allen L. Trach, 5448 Route 145, Laury’s Station, PA 18059-1307Attorney: Daniel G. Spengler, Esquire, 110 East Main Street, Bath, PA 18014

LOCATION OF TRUSTSeeking any and all persons who

may have information regarding the location of the late PEDRO L. BOONE, ESQUIRE’s files and/or any informa-tion regarding possible trust documents related to AUGUST L. CHICCHI AND MARY H. CHICCHI, both late of the Borough of Heller-town, Northampton County, Pennsyl-vania. Please respond without delay to: Philomena Abd-El-Bary, Executrix c/o Lori Gardiner Kreglow, Esquire, 18 East Market Street, P.O. Box 1961, Bethlehem, PA 18016-1961.

June 30; July 7, 14NOTICE OF NONPROFIT

INCORPORATIONNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

Articles of Incorporation—Nonprofit were filed on June 17, 2016, in the Pennsylvania Department of State for:

CHAUTAUQUA AT THE FORKS OF THE DELAWARE, INC.

in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corpora-tion Law of 1988.

DANIEL E. COHEN, ATTORNEYSEIDEL, COHEN, HOF

& REID, L.L.C.3101 Emrick BoulevardSuite 205Bethlehem, PA 18020

July 7LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

NOTICENOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

a Certificate of Organization for a

Domestic Limited Liability Company was filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State for:

JOSH ORTWEIN REMODELING LLC

in accordance with the provisions of the Limited Liability Company Act of 1994.

DENNIS P. ORTWEIN, ESQUIRE5201 William Penn Hwy.Easton, PA 18045

July 7IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISIONThe following Executors, Admin-

istrators, Guardians & Trustees have filed Accounts in the Office of the Orphans’ Court:

ESTATE; AccountantCONSELLA PALMER; Michelle

Asch a/k/a Michele Asch, ExecutrixREBECCA SUE MILLER a/k/a

REBECCA S. MILLER; Diane A. Miller, Administratrix

WILBUR HOCKING a/k/a WILBUR J. HOCKING; Philip Rubino, Executor

BARRY C. WERKHEISER; Janet Werkheiser, Executrix

AUDIT NOTICEAll Parties interested are notified

that an audit list will be made up of all Accounts and the said list will be called for audit at the Northampton County Government Center, Easton, PA on: FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2016 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM #1.

Gina X. GibbsClerk of Orphans’ Court

July 7, 14PARALEGAL

Bethlehem area law firm has position available for full-time or part-time paralegal. Applicant must have at least 3 years’ civil litigation/insurance defense experience with


9

strong organizational, computer and grammatical skills. Knowledge of Word and Excel necessary. Familiar-ity with organizational software, such as Timeslips and Abacus, a plus. E-mail resume with cover letter to [email protected] or mail to 901 West Lehigh Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018.

June 30; July 7, 14


10

REAL ESTATE OFFERINGExceptional West Bethlehem, Mt. Airy Section with tree-

lined streets and a bastion of architecturally significant housing, sits this newest real estate offering at 1006 Prospect Avenue: Built in the early 20th Century as part of the second generation of Bethlehem Steel Executive Housing this home features large “wraparound porches” for socializing at all times of the year. Large, mullioned windows are a special treat! There is ample living, entertaining and functional space for any size family. Living room with marble fireplace, formal dining room, bar area and a wide open kitchen with sit-down dining completes the interior first floor socializing headquarters. The second floor has a master bedroom suite with dressing room and a very bright full bath with Jacuzzi, two large bedrooms and a second full bath. The third floor offers two really neat bedrooms, and office which could be a third bedroom and a full bathroom. Your kids will fight over this space with the slanted roof lines. Closet space abounds throughout! These three floors offer 3,950 sq. ft. of living space. The lower level contains a laundry room, gardener’s room, tool room and family room with a brick fireplace. The basement entrance leads to a fenced-in yard, ideal for the family pets. There is a detached 1 1/2 story, two-car garage. The lot is IRR 140’ X 204’ with 26,593 sq. ft. Seventeen trees adorn this property. Walk to the elementary and middle schools, public parks and playgrounds abound! Walk to our very special downtowns on Main Street and the Southside. Invite your friends and family to join you and walk to the Celtic Classic, Musikfest, Restaurant Week, the Levitt Pavilion, ArtsQuest, 3 Colleges & Universities and all the ongoing events that complement this historic gem called Bethlehem. Oh yes, the house is available for $534,900. Please call (610) 691-6354 to arrange a showing

July 7

Com. of PA v. Chorney292 Vol. 59

Com. of PA v. Chorney

Commonwealth oF PennSYlVanIa v. mIChael CodY ChorneY, defendant

Pretrial Motions—Search and Seizure—Consent—Scope—Hotel—Inven-tory—Exigent Circumstances—Inevitable Discovery—Receiving Stolen Property—Evidentiary Burden.

Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of Receiving Stolen Property and one count of Purchase of an Alcoholic Beverage by a Minor following an incident at the Sands Casino Hotel in the City of Bethlehem. The matter came before the Court on Defendant’s Post-Trial Motions in the form of a motion to suppress physical evidence and a motion for habeas corpus relief.

The Receiving Stolen Property charge arose following the arrival of police and hotel security to a room rented by Defendant on what was initially reported as a noise complaint and was later upgraded to an assault case. Upon arrival to the room, the police and security observed the Defendant, badly beaten and bloodied, and his assailant in the room, that was otherwise in disarray and littered with liquor bottles. In the course of police trying to ascertain the identities of the men in the room, Defendant advised that their identification was locked in the safe, and he gave permission for the safe to be opened by hotel security so that the identification could be retrieved. Upon opening the safe, the police retrieved the identification, and several other items, including a closed, opaque case. Police opened the case, and discov-ered a firearm. Upon running the serial number, they learned that the gun was stolen.

Defendant argued that because the scope of the consent was solely to retrieve identi-fication, the gun should be suppressed. By way of opposition, the Commonwealth first con-tended that the opening of the case was necessary to the protection of the officers and others on scene and therefore valid pursuant to the doctrine of exigent circumstances. Given that the Defendant and his assailant had been cleared from the room by the time the case was opened, and because the firearm had prior thereto been securely locked in a safe, the Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument.

Additionally, the Commonwealth argued that the firearm was discoverable pursuant to the inevitable discovery doctrine, which provides that evidence would have been discovered absent police misconduct is not subject to suppression. Relying on the testimony of Sands security that it is their policy to inventory rooms after they have been abandoned by renters and to turn over any contraband to police, the Commonwealth argued that had it not previ-ously been discovered, the firearm would have ended up in their possession as a result of this procedure, thereby rendering it a valid piece of evidence. Noting that the access and use of a hotel room by personnel after a renter has vacated does not extend to the discrete and concealed personal effects of the renter, the Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument and granted Defendant’s suppression motion.

Finally, while noting the likelihood that the ruling on the suppression motion would be dispositive to the case, the Court addressed Defendant’s habeas corpus motion, which was premised on evidence in the form of a police report suggesting that the subject firearm was never reported stolen. On the basis of such evidence, the Defendant argued that it was impos-sible for the Commonwealth to establish the essential element of the RSP charge that the firearm was in fact stolen. Upon review and consideration, the Court was not swayed by the Defendant’s analysis of the evidence in the case, and the motion was denied.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division—No. C-0048-CR-2028-2015.

Kendahl deFelice, esquire, for the Commonwealth.

Gary asteaK, esquire, for the Defendant.

Order of the Court entered on November 23, 2015 by dally, J.11

293Com. of PA v. Chorney

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of November, 2015, upon review and consideration of Defendant Michael Cody Chorney’s Omnibus Pretrial Motions for Relief, the same are hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth more fully in the following Statement of Reasons.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Procedural Background

On April 16, 2015, twenty (20) year old Michael Cody Chorney (“Defendant”) was arrested and charged with one count of Receiving Sto-len Property (“RSP”) (F2) in connection with his possession of a stolen semiautomatic Taurus handgun, and one count of Purchase of an Alco-holic Beverage by a Minor (S) following an incident1 at the Sands Casino Hotel (“Sands” or “Sands Hotel”) in the City of Bethlehem. Both charges were bound over to the Court on June 30, 2015, following a preliminary hearing before Senior District Judge James F. Stocklas.

On July 21, 2015, Defendant filed an Application to Dismiss by which he challenged the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence to establish the scienter element of the RSP charge. The Application came before the undersigned for decision, and it was denied by an Order and Statement of Reasons entered on September 25, 2015.

On October 6, 2015, Defendant filed “Omnibus Pretrial Motions for Relief ” inclusive of the motion to dismiss the RSP charge for the Com-monwealth’s alleged failure to present evidence demonstrating that the ———

1 In the early morning hours of April 16, 2015, Sands security and the City of Bethle-hem Police Department (“officers”) responded to a noise complaint emanating from Room 1104, a room rented by Defendant. N.T. 6:10-7:12. When they arrived at the scene, the officers encountered a group of individuals sitting in the hallway outside the room. The door to the room was ajar, and inside, they saw the Defendant, badly bloodied and crawling toward them, and his friend, Shayne Brown, standing over him. N.T. 7:13-16; 11:17-24. The room was in great disarray, strewn with liquor bottles and other items. N.T. 12:16-23. In an effort to iden-tify the parties, the officers asked Mssrs. Chorney and Brown for their identification, which they were told was in the hotel safe. N.T. 13:14-15. When asked if he had a passcode for the safe, the Defendant indicated that he did not remember it, but he ultimately gave his permis-sion for Sands security to open the safe so the officers could retrieve his identification. N.T. 14:15-15:1; 40:2-20; 49:17-50:1; 51:12-16. When the safe was opened, the officers, in addi-tion to retrieving the identification cards of Defendant and Mr. Brown, the officers also retrieved a pair of high-top sneakers, a clear orange bottle of prescription medicine, a black plastic case and a brown soft case. N.T. 44:5-12. Officer Woolard testified at the hearing in this matter that he opened the cases because “they appeared to be pistol cases, and it needed to be deter-mined if there was [sic] weapons, in fact, on location inside that case.” N.T. 52:18-21. The Taurus handgun and a revolver were recovered, and the serial numbers were run. N.T. 47:11-14. As a result, it was discovered that the Taurus handgun had been reported stolen. N.T. 47:21-24.

12


Taurus handgun was in fact stolen, and a motion to suppress the introduc-tion of the firearm as evidence in the case based on the contention that it was the fruit of an illegal search. The Court held a hearing on the motions on October 23, 2015, at which time the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Sands Security Manager Brian Aikey and Officer Glenn Woolard of the City of Bethlehem Police Department, both of whom were on the scene on April 16, 2015. At the close of the hearing, the Court ordered that the transcript be produced, and a briefing schedule was set. Briefs hav-ing been received, the motions are now ready for disposition.

DiscussionSuppression Motion

By his first motion, Defendant seeks to suppress the Taurus handgun seized from the safe in his rented room at the Sands Casino Hotel by the City of Bethlehem Police Department in the early morning hours of April 16, 2015, the discovery of which serves as the basis for the Receiving Stolen Property charge pending against him.

Standard of Law

The right to be secure in one’s “person[], house[], papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Pursuant to this protection, the police may not conduct a search absent the issuance of a warrant upon probable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot by a neutral and detached magistrate. Id.; see e.g., Commonwealth v. Sharp, 453 Pa. Super. 349, 683 A.2d 1219 (1996).

The protection of the Fourth Amendment does not depend on a property right in the invaded place but does depend on whether the person who claims the protection of the Amend-ment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. ...

An expectation of privacy is present when the individu-al, by his conduct, ‘exhibits an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy’ and that the subjective expectation ‘is one that so-ciety is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” ’ ... The consti-tutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the sur-rounding circumstances. ...

Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 533 Pa. 167, 173, 620 A.2d 1115, 1118 (1993)(citations omitted).

Notably, the law permits the conduct of a warrantless search in certain circumstances, including but not limited to cases where officers are given

13


valid consent to search, and where exigent circumstances excuse the war-rant requirement. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 68 A.3d 930 (Pa. Super. 2013). In cases where no valid search warrant is issued, or where none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies to validate the search and seizure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in pertinent part that a defendant “may make a motion to the court to suppress any evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights.” Pa. R.Crim.P. 581.

The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his ... Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 130 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) ... Thus, before a defendant may challenge a search or seizure on Fourth Amendment grounds, he or she must demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched.

Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185, 188 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal de-nied, 124 A.3d 309 (Sept. 16, 2015).

Discussion

In the instant case, the police were called to the hotel room rented by Defendant after a noise complaint resulted in hotel personnel’s discovery of the Defendant, badly beaten and bloodied, and his assailant, in the room. N.T. 34:11-25; 35:23-36:6. In the course of investigating and securing the scene, the police inquired of Defendant as to the location of his photo identification and were ultimately apprised that it was in the room’s locked safe. N.T. 39:14-40:7. Officer Glenn Woolard of the City of Bethlehem Police Department testified at the October 23, 2015 hearing that Defendant eventually gave consent for hotel staff to open the safe so that the police could retrieve his identification. N.T. 40:10-20. Officer Woolard further testified that “[t]he moment that the safe opened, Sands immediately took a snapshot for their records, and we began to identify the items in the safe.” N.T. 42:8-11. He stated that he then inventoried the items in the safe, find-ing a “pair of high-top sneakers ... a clear orange bottle of prescription medicine ... two ID cards: one for Shayne Brown and one for Michael Chorney ... a black plastic case containing a Taurus handgun, and there was a brown soft case containing a revolver.” N.T. 44:5-12.

On cross-examination, Officer Woolard corroborated for defense counsel that the purpose for looking into the safe was to confirm the loca-tion of and obtain the identification cards of Defendant and his assailant. N.T. 51:12-15. As such, Defendant argues that the retrieval of the Taurus handgun from its closed case inside the safe impermissibly exceeded the scope of the search, requiring its suppression.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that indeed, the warrantless re-trieval of the Taurus handgun from its closed case inside the hotel safe

14


exceeded the scope of the consent to search given to police by Defendant. It is well-settled that “[w]hen an official search is properly authorized, the scope of the search is limited by the terms of its authorization.” Common-wealth v. Reid, 571 Pa. 1, 32, 811 A.2d 530, 548-49 (2002). In cases, such as here, where consent is given and the validity of a search is challenged based on the scope of the consent, “[t]he standard for measuring the scope of a person’s consent is based on an objective evaluation of what a reason-able person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the person who gave the consent.” Id. at 32-33, 811 A.2d at 549. In the instant case, all of the testimony set forth at the preliminary hearing and the hearing on the instant motion clearly establishes that Defendant gave his consent for police to open the hotel safe for the sole purpose of retriev-ing identification cards. N.T. 51:12-15. Certainly, if the police had observed any contraband items in plain view2 when they opened the safe, such items would be validly subject to seizure. However, the Taurus handgun was in a closed, opaque case. It is well-established that “searches of closed con-tainers ... intrude upon protected privacy interests as a matter of law.” See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 337, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view.” (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 822-23, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)). Perel, supra at 189. As such, it appears that the search of the closed container containing the Taurus handgun was in violation of Defen-dant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

However, the Commonwealth contends that the search was valid, and it asserts two grounds in support of that contention. First, the Commonwealth contends that the seizure of the gun was necessary and valid pursuant to exigent circumstances in the form of officer and public safety. Common-wealth v. Perry, 568 Pa. 499, 507-508, 798 A.2d 697, 702 (2002).

Exigent circumstances arise where the need for prompt police action is imperative, either because evidence is likely to be destroyed, or because there exists a threat of physical harm to police officers or other innocent individuals. ... When evaluating whether there are exigent circumstances which justify a warrantless search, ‘a court must balance the indi-vidual’s right to be free from unreasonable intrusions against the interest of society in quickly and adequately investigating crime and preventing the destruction of evidence.’ ...

Commonwealth v. Griffin, 24 A.3d 1037, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2011)(citations omitted).———

2 Commonwealth v. Petroll, 558 Pa. 565, 576, 738 A.2d 993, 999 (1999) (“If a police officer views an object from a lawful vantage point, and the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent to the officer, a warrantless seizure of the object is justified ... [as] [t]here can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in an object that is in plain view.”) (citation omitted).

15


Here, the Commonwealth urges that given the bloody scene when the officers arrived on the scene, an exigency existed to ensure the safety of those in the room. Upon consideration, the Court finds the evidence of record insufficient to bear out this contention. None of the testimony ad-duced at the preliminary hearing or the suppression hearing supports the notion that anyone in Room 1104 was in danger of harm by the time the officers opened the safe, and retrieved the closed container containing the firearm. Indeed, Officer Woolard testified that at the time they sought con-sent to open the safe, Mr. Brown was sitting outside the room secured in handcuffs, and Mr. Chorney was in the hallway being placed on a stretch-er, secured by a backboard and a neck brace. N.T. 40:25-41:13. As such, there were clearly no exigencies that could have justified the police open-ing and examining the contents of the case containing the allegedly stolen Taurus handgun.

Alternatively, the Commonwealth suggests that the seizure of the handgun was valid pursuant to the “inevitable discovery doctrine.”

The Supreme Court of the United States announced the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). The Nix Court held that the fruits of an unconstitu-tional search are admissible where ‘the prosecution can estab-lish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.’ Id. at 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501. However, due to the con-comitant protections afforded by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,[] our inevitable discovery jurispru-dence does not mirror its federal counterpart. Commonwealth v. Mason, 535 Pa. 560, 637 A.2d 251, 256 (1993). ... [In Penn-sylvania, the p]olice must demonstrate that the evidence would have been discovered absent the police misconduct ... .

Perel, supra at 194, appeal denied, 124 A.3d 309 (Sept. 16, 2015) (footnote omitted).

Here, the Commonwealth relies on the October 23, 2015 hearing testimony of Sands employee Brian Aikey to argue the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine. He testified that after the safe was opened and the police had confiscated the subject firearm, the Defendant was transported from the scene by EMS and Sands personnel began to inven-tory the contents of the room. N.T. 16:20-17:12. Asked to further explain the hotel policy in place for when a guest checks out or is taken out “for medical reasons,” Mr. Aikey explained that:

[a]nything that’s left in the room that doesn’t belong to the hotel, we have to take inventory of it. We have to open the safe, we have to open the doors, we have to open the refrigerator, look for any items that were left by the guest. We inventory

16


them and we put them in our lost and found. If we come across anything illegal, whether it be weapons or drugs, we will con-tact the Bethlehem police and notify them of our discovery.

N.T. 17:20-18:4.In Brundidge, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, acknowledging

that while the Fourth Amendment entitles a hotel guest to a legitimate expectation of privacy during the term of their rental, “no such expectation exists in the room or in any item in plain view to anyone readying the room after checkout time for the next occupant.” Id. More specifically, the court held that after a rental term has expired and hotel personnel have regained “access to and use of ” a hotel room, such use and access “does not extend to ... the discrete and concealed personal effects [of the renter, such as] personal luggage or other containers which do not reveal the nature of their contents.” Id. at 174, 620 A.2d at 1118-19.

Given the dictate of Brundidge, the Court rejects the Commonwealth’s contention that but for the illegal search of the container holding the Taurus handgun, that the Bethlehem Police Department would have come to dis-cover it by legal means pursuant to the Sands Hotel’s inventory search of the room. Although such a search may have been inevitable, Sands person-nel would have had no legal authority to open the closed container contain-ing the firearm. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to suppress the discovery of the Taurus handgun is hereby GRANTED.

Habeas Corpus Relief

While the Court’s ruling as to Defendant’s motion to suppress may be dispositive of this case, the Court will nevertheless address his final motion—for habeas corpus relief.

Standard of Law

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for challenging a pretrial finding that the Commonwealth pre-sented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Commonwealth v. Huggins, 790 A.2d 1042 (Pa.Super.2002). Therefore, a pretrial petition for habeas corpus relief is similar in purpose to a preliminary hearing. Commonwealth v. Scott, 396 Pa.Super. 339, 578 A.2d 933 (1990); ... [In ruling on such a motion, the Court must determine] whether a prima facie case was established. Commonwealth v. Saunders, 456 Pa.Super. 741, 691 A.2d 946 (1997). In criminal matters, a prima facie case is that measure of evidence which, if accepted as true, would justify the conclusion that the defendant committed the offense charged. Commonwealth v. MacPherson, 561 Pa. 571, 752 A.2d 384 (2000).

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kohlie, 811 A.2d 1010, 1013 (Pa. Super. 2002).

17


Discussion

As the basis for his motion, Defendant asserts that the evidence ad-duced by the Commonwealth at the preliminary hearing is insufficient as a matter of law to support the charge of Receiving Stolen Property. Under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, “[a] person is guilty of theft if he intention-ally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3925. Accordingly, “[t]o establish the offense of receiving stolen property, the Commonwealth [is] required to present evi-dence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the property had been stolen, (2) the accused received the property and (3) the accused knew or had reasonable cause to know that it had been stolen.” Common-wealth v. Worrell, 277 Pa. Super. 386, 390, 419 A.2d 1199, 1201 (1980).

Defendant previously raised the same issue, and his motion was denied by the Court’s Order and Statement of Reasons of September 25, 2015. Accordingly, the Commonwealth urges that the instant motion should be denied as moot. However, Defendant urges that the instant motion is premised on discovery that was not available to him at the time of his initial pretrial motion.

Defendant’s initial motion was a challenge to the scienter element of the crime, while the present motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence to establish that the subject firearm was stolen. In support of the same, Defendant relies on the narrative portion of a report prepared by the Easton Police Department, attached to his brief, that repeat-edly refers to the firearm as “missing.” In his brief, Defendant argues that the report is “the only thing we have to go on [to establish that the Taurus was stolen], absent testimony produced by the Commonwealth.” Brief in Support of Pretrial Motions at 5-6. As Defendant admits by this statement, the report is but one piece of evidence that a jury could consider and pos-sibly construe in his favor, but it is does not establish the Commonwealth’s failure to present evidence sufficient to prove that the firearm was stolen. As such, Defendant’s habeas corpus motion is DENIED.

18


19

DELI TO: VER

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, July 11, 2016

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael Cody … N_59_27.pdf · Scott M. Wilhelm ZONE II DELEGATES...

Documents

Transcript of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael Cody … N_59_27.pdf · Scott M. Wilhelm ZONE II DELEGATES...