Commonwealth v. Harris

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NATHAN HARRIS Appellant

No. 2621 EDA 2023

J-S16017-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

August 12, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 10, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0005686-2021

BEFORE: STABILE, J., LANE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

LANE J.

Nathan Harris ("Harris") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance ("PWID"), and possession of drug paraphernalia.^[1] We affirm.

As Harris' sole issue on appeal concerns whether the search warrant for his residence was supported by probable cause, we review the four corners of the affidavit of probable cause in detail. The affiant, Falls Township Police Detective John Vella, stated the following: in March 2021, New Jersey State Police ("NJSP") Trooper Mastalski^[2] learned from a confidential informant ("CI") that "Dot," determined to be Harris, sold heroin from a store on Centre Street, Trenton, New Jersey. See Omnibus PreTrial Motion, 5/25/22, Exhibit, Affidavit of Probable Cause, 5/6/21, at 1. The store did not operate like a typical store and there was no store name on the building. See id. NJSP Trooper Mastalski also reported Harris' residential address to be Unit 80 of the Nolan Park Apartments in Morrisville, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. See id. at 2. NJSP Trooper Mastalski followed Harris from Nolan Park Apartments to his store, where he observed the CI make a controlled purchase of heroin from Harris.

In April 2021, Detective Vella began working with the NJSP's drug investigation. See id. at 1. Detective Vella and the NJSP arranged four additional controlled purchases between the CI and Harris in April and May 2021.^[3] See id. at 2-5. NJSP Trooper Mastalski scheduled the first of these to occur at Harris' store, although he knew Harris often changed the location of the purchase to an area near his store. See id. at 2. Detective Vella and Bucks County Task Force Officers witnessed Harris leave his apartment in Morrisville and drive into Trenton. See id. at 3. NJSP Trooper Mastalski and his surveillance officers picked up surveillance in Trenton and witnessed Harris sell heroin to the CI in the area of Cliff and Centre Streets in Trenton. See id.

The affidavit of probable cause stated that NJSP Trooper Mastalski scheduled a second controlled purchase at Harris' store. See id. Detective Vella and Bucks County Officers were again positioned outside of Harris' apartment but did not witness him leave his apartment. See id. NJSP Trooper Mastalski then notified Detective Vella that Harris was already in Trenton, and he was the passenger in a vehicle registered to someone else. See id. The driver went to the area of Cliff and Centre Streets. Officers observed Harris sell heroin to the CI, hand the money to the driver, and then walk to his store. See id.

NJSP Trooper Mastalski scheduled a third controlled purchase at Harris' store. See id. Detective Vella and Bucks County Officers witnessed Harris leave his apartment. See Id. at 4. While following Harris into Trenton, however, Detective Vella and the other officers lost sight of him. See id. Shortly thereafter, NJSP Trooper Mastalski observed Harris arrive at his store in Trenton. See id.

At this time, NJSP Trooper Mastalski witnessed a woman quickly enter and exit Harris' store. See id. Officers stopped her vehicle and recovered "two bundles of heroin, a baggie of suspected crack cocaine, and a cut straw with residue." Id. The woman consented to a search of her phone, which revealed prior messages from Harris agreeing to sell drugs to her in Morrisville. See id. Other surveillance officers then witnessed Harris walk to the area of Lamberton and Landing Streets in Trenton, where Harris sold the CI heroin, in accordance with the controlled purchase scheduled for that day.

Next, NJSP Trooper Mastalski scheduled the fifth controlled purchase outside Harris' apartment in Morrisville. See id. at 5. Detective Vella and Bucks County Officers observed the CI enter the parking lot of Nolan Park Apartments and park next to Harris' vehicle. See id. The officers witnessed Harris exit his apartment, "go into the passenger side of his vehicle, and then go [to] the CI's car, briefly meeting with the CI before they both left." Id. Officers then observed Harris walk back to his apartment. The CI provided the brick of heroin he received during the transaction to the officers. See id.

Finally, in the affidavit of probable cause, Detective Vella stated his belief, based on his training and experience, that it is common for drug traffickers to maintain the following in their residences:

controlled substances, books, records, receipts, notes and ledgers relative to the transportation, sale, distribution and ordering of controlled substances [and] . . . paraphernalia for cutting, packaging, weighing and distributing controlled substances. This paraphernalia includes but is not limited to: manual and electronic scales, heat sealers, [and] plastic bags including zip lock bags.

Id. at 5-6. Based on Detective Vella's experience, he believed there was probable cause to search Harris' residence for evidence of drug trafficking.

The magistrate court issued a warrant to search Harris' apartment. As a result of the search, the police recovered: more than eight "bricks" of heroin; five "baggies" containing fentanyl; a bag containing cocaine; thirty "baggies of substances;" zip lock bags, and a digital scale. Trial Court Opinion, 6/29/23, at 2.

The Commonwealth charged Harris with drug offenses. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence found at his apartment, arguing the four corners of the affidavit of probable cause failed to establish the requisite probable cause. On February 1, 2023, the trial court heard argument from the parties and denied Harris' motion to suppress.^[4] The charges then proceeded immediately to a stipulated waiver trial, where the parties agreed to the introduction of the same evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

The trial court found Harris guilty of possession of a controlled substance, PWID, and possession of drug paraphernalia. On February 10, 2023, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five and one-half to eleven years' imprisonment. Harris filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied.^[5] He then filed a notice of appeal nunc pro tunc. Both he and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Harris presents one issue for our review: "Did the trial court err in denying [Harris'] omnibus [pretrial] motion to suppress where the search warrant for [his] residence was not supported by probable cause?" Harris's Brief at 9 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

Harris argues that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, where the affidavit of probable cause did not establish probable cause to search his residence. Our standard of review with respect to a suppression ruling is limited to determining:

whether the suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth 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 suppression court's factual findings are supported by the record, we are bound by those findings and may reverse only if the court's legal conclusions are erroneous. Where . . . the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of legal error, the suppression court's legal conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are subject to plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Our scope of review "is confined primarily to questions of law." Commonwealth v. Smith, 784 A.2d 182, 185 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations omitted). We review only the record that existed at the time of suppression ruling. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 241 A.3d 1160, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2020).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution both require a search warrant to be supported by probable cause. See Jones, 988 A.2d at 654. When reviewing an application for a search warrant, the task of the issuing magistrate is to make a common-sense decision whether, considering all the information in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. See Smith, 784 A.2d at 185 (citations omitted). A finding of probable cause must "be based on facts described within the four corners of the affidavit." Id. (citations omitted).

Pennsylvania courts employ a "totality of the circumstances approach" to determine whether a request for a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment is supported by probable cause. Commonwealth v. Gray, 926 (Pa. 1985). Our Supreme Court has stated:

Pursuant to the "totality of the circumstances" test . . . the task of an issuing authority is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. . . . It is the duty of a court reviewing an issuing

...