VOL. LX EASTON, PA September 12, 2019 NO. 89 Commonwealth ...€¦ · Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The...

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.

(USPS 395-280)VOL. LX EASTON, PA September 12, 2019 NO. 89

CONTENTS

INSERT: Green: 1. Annual Memorial Service 2. 2019 Calendar 3. 2019 Holiday Hope Chests Project 4. Find us on: facebook

Cream: 1. “Advance Care Planning: Advance Directive and Other Tools to Guide Medical Decisions (including special needs for those with dementia, intellectual/cognitive disabilities and other special circumstances)” 2. “Municipal Law Colloquium” 3. Bridge the Gap Program 4. NCBA/Miller Keystone Blood Center Blood Bank Program

Yellow: 1. “Healthcare Liens in Personal Injury Cases: Mastering the Fundamentals of Subrogation” 2. Happy Hour 3. “VA Pension and Aid & Attendance” 4. Fifth Annual Donut Day!

NOTICE TO THE BAR...Annual Memorial ServiceTuesday, September 17, 20199:00 a.m. Courtroom #1

Audit—Orphans’ Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Bar News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Certificate of Authority Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Estate and Trust Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Fictitious Name Registration Notices . . . . . . . . 7

Legal Aid Attorney Needed— Bethlehem Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Legal Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Limited Liability Company Notice . . . . . . . . . . . 8Notice of Incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Solicitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kasheem Abdullah Aiken, 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 ASSOCIATION2019 BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICERS

Lisa Spitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PresidentRobert Eyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . President-ElectMaura Zajac McGuire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vice PresidentPaul J. Harak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TreasurerSteven B. Molder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SecretaryDaniel O’Donnell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past President

BOARD OF GOVERNORSDavid M. Backenstoe

Jeremy F. ClarkJacqueline K. HolmesMichael A. SantanastoRichard Eugene Santee

Douglas J. Tkacik Scott M. Wilhelm

ZONE II DELEGATESMichael C. Deschler Jonathan M. Huerta Richard P. Kovacs

Joel M. ScheerDaniel O’Donnell

BAR ASSOCIATION STAFFMary Beth Leeson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Executive DirectorPatti A. Gober . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AccountingJelissa Fernandez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal JournalHeather Rizzotto-Stefanik . . . . . . . . .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

Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it’s better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring. ~ Marilyn Monroe

NOTICE TO NCBA MEMBERS – BAR NEWS

Save the DatesAmicus Soirée – Friday, October 11, 2019

Location: Martin Guitar, Nazareth, PA.Ceremonial Admissions to the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas

Friday, December 6, 2019Location: Courtroom #1, 1:15 p.m.

Family Holiday Party – Sunday, December 15, 2019Location: The Phoenix, Nazareth PA, 2:00 p.m.

Courthouse Library Copy Machine CardsCopy machine cards are still available at the NCBA Office. If you make

any copies on the copy machine in the Law Library you may want to consider purchasing copy cards. The cards sell for $10.00. If you use the cards, copies are 15 cents rather than the usual 25 cents.

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY REPORTER Vol. 60 No. 89 9/12/2019

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 PUBLICATIONBENDER, STANLEY R., JR., dec’d.

Late of the Township of Bushkill, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Julianne D. Bender c/o Gary Neil Asteak, Esquire, 726 Walnut Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorney: Gary Neil Asteak, Esquire, 726 Walnut Street, Easton, PA 18042

GILLESPIE, DOROTHY M., dec’d.Late of Forks Township, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: Collen A. Yuhas c/o Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 S. 4th Street, Easton, PA 18042Attorneys: Thomas L. Walters, Esquire, Lewis and Walters, 46 South Fourth Street, Easton, PA 18042

KOSTENBADER, MARGARET R. a / k / a M A R G A R E T I . KOSTENBADER, dec’d.Late of the Borough of Nazareth, North ampton County, PA

Co-Executors : Kurt W. Kostenbader and Kay M. Kostenbader c/o Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064

LEH, WILLARD H., dec’d.Late of the Township of Bushkill, North ampton County, PAAdministratrix: Candace Jane Adamski 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

LUTTON, MARY JANE, dec’d.Late of Bethlehem Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Jocelyn M. Hudson c/o Douglas J. Tkacik, Esquire, 18 East Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorney: Douglas J. Tkacik, Esquire, 18 East Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

OLITSKY, JERALD R. a/k/a JERRY R. OLITSKY, dec’d.Late of the Township of Lower Saucon, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Susan Jean Gignac c/o Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorney: Karl F. Longenbach, Esquire, 425 W. Broad Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018-1920

TONE, MARIAN E., dec’d.Late of the City of Easton, Northampton County, PA


5

Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

BLAKE, ETHEL B., dec’d.Late of the Township of Palmer, North ampton County, PAThe Ethel B. Blake Revocable Living Trust Dated February 17, 2005Trustee: James M. Robinson c/o Dionysios C. Pappas, Esquire, Vasiliadis Pappas Associates LLC, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020Attorneys: Dionysios C. Pappas, Esquire, Vasiliadis Pappas Asso-ciates LLC, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020

BORGER, ARRON S., dec’d.Late of the Borough of Northamp-ton, North ampton County, PAAdministratrix: Cheryl S. Borger c/o Joshua D. Shulman, Esquire, Shulman Law Office PC, 1935 Center Street, Northamp-ton, PA 18067Attorneys: Joshua D. Shulman, Esquire, Shulman Law Office PC, 1935 Center Street, Northamp-ton, PA 18067

BRUCH, KENNETH N., dec’d.Late of the City of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAAdministrator: Bret A. BruchAttorneys: Paul J. Bender, Esquire, Benner & Trovato, 2005 City Line Road, Suite 106, Bethlehem, PA 18017

COUGLE, RUTH F., dec’d.Late of the Township of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecutor: Louis A. Cougle, Jr. c/o Peters, Moritz, Peischl,

Executor: Donald C. Jean c/o Goudsouzian & Associates, 2940 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045-5227Attorneys: Goudsouzian & Asso-ciates, 2940 William Penn Highway, Easton, PA 18045-5227

WALTERS, RAY M., dec’d.Late of 423 Arlington Street, Palmer Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Diane L. Horvath c/o Robert Van Horn, Esquire, 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

SECOND PUBLICATIONABEL, EARL FRANKLIN, dec’d.

Late of Plainfield Township, North ampton County, PAExecutrices: Kathleen Faye Owens and Diane L. Huber c/o Richard Eugene Santee, Esquire, Shay, Santee & Kelhart, 44 E. Broad Street, Suite 210, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Richard Eugene Santee, Esquire, Shay, Santee & Kelhart, 44 E. Broad Street, Suite 210, Bethlehem, PA 18018

BARTEK, JOSEPH M., SR., dec’d.Late of the Township of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecu t r i x : Donna L e e Montgomery c/o Robert V. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Robert V. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler &


6

West Lehigh Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Daniel M. O’Donnell, Esquire, Maloney, Danyi & O’Donnell, 901 West Lehigh Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

SCHMIDT, FREDERICK KIRK, dec’d.Late of 535 Park Place, Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAPersonal Representative: Randall J. Schmidt c/o R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060, Allentown, PA 18105-4060Attorneys: R. Nicholas Nanovic, Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060, Allentown, PA 18105-4060

STANCAVAGE, EDWARD J., dec’d.Late of Easton, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Lynn M. Murray, 159 Edgewood Avenue, Audubon, NJ 08106Attorneys: Piazza Law Group, 801 Boulevard Avenue, Dickson City, PA 18519

WERPEHOWSKI, MARY ANNE a/k/a MARY ANNE D. WERPEHOWSKI, dec’d.Late of Hanover Township, North ampton County, PAExecu to r s : W i l l i am J . Werpehowski and Robert D. Fleming c/o Michael E. Riskin, Esquire, 18 E. Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorney: Michael E. Riskin, Esquire, 18 E. Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Peischl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, LLP, 1 South Main Street, Nazareth, PA 18064

FRASSETTO, EUGENE L., dec’d.Late of Northampton, North-ampton County, PAExecutors: Mary Ann Kocher-Frassetto and Michael C. Frassetto c/o Charles A. Waters, Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Slatington, PA 18080Attorneys: Charles A. Waters, Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Slatington, PA 18080

KOSZI, ESTELLA R., dec’d.Late of 1914 7th St., Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecutor: Joseph Krasnai c/o Chrystyna M. Fenchen, Esquire, 3686 Lower Saucon Rd., Heller-town, PA 18088Attorney: Chrystyna M. Fenchen, Esquire, 3686 Lower Saucon Rd., Hellertown, PA 18088

PALMIERI, PATRICIA C., dec’d.Late of Upper Mount Bethel Twp., North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Nancy C. Larocca, 1500 Roller Rd., Ocean, NJ 07712Attorneys: Elizabeth B. Place, Esquire, Skarlatos Zonarich, 320 Market St., Ste. 600W, Harris-burg, PA 17101

SCHLENKER, ALMA H., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Catherine R. Hayduk c/o Daniel M. O’Donnell, Esquire, Maloney, Danyi & O’Donnell, 901


7

THIRD PUBLICATIONBOKSENBAUM, MARTIN

WILLIAM, dec’d.Late of the Township of Lehigh, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Pamela Rose Ruch c/o Robert V. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Robert V. Littner, Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Littner, 512 North New Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

CHESTNUTT, CHARLES R., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecutrix: Christine Deiter c/o Noonan Law Office, 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101-2394Attorneys: Noonan Law Office, 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101-2394

CONELIAS, MICHAEL J., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAAdministrator: Trent P. Conelias c/o Douglas J. Tkacik, Esquire, 18 East Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorney: Douglas J. Tkacik, Esquire, 18 East Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

DEAN, WALTER S., dec’d.Late of Mount Bethel, North-ampton County, PAExecutrix: Janis Amodeo, 299 Fox Hill Rd., Denville, NJ 07834

KARABIN, THERESA C., dec’d.Late of Bethlehem, North ampton County, PAExecutor: Gregory George Karabin c/o Lisa A. Pereira, Esquire, Broughal & DeVito,

L.L.P., 38 West Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018Attorneys: Lisa A. Pereira, Esquire, Broughal & DeVito, L.L.P., 38 West Market Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018

SMALE, MARY R. a/k/a MARY RACHAEL SMALE, dec’d.Late of North Catasauqua, North ampton County, PAExecutrices: Yvonne M. McDermott and Mary Jane Geiger c/o Noonan Law Office, 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101-2394Attorneys: Noonan Law Office, 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101-2394

NOTICE OF INCORPORATIONNotice is given that the Articles of

Incorporation of:THE YELLOW BALLOON CORP.

have been filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State, and the corpora-tion has been incorporated under the provisions of the Business Corpora-tion Law of 1988.

Sept. 12FICTITIOUS NAME

REGISTRATION NOTICESNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name was filed in the Department of State of the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania on August 12, 2019 for:

CivilByDesignat: 70 Flagler Street, Easton, PA 18042. The name and address of the individual interested in the business are Stephen Walsh at 70 Flagler Street, Easton, PA 18042. This was filed in accordance with 54 Pa. C.S. 311.

Sept. 12


8

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name was filed in the Department of State of the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania on July 11, 2019 for:

JOURNEYMAN PAINTINGat: 209 State Street, Mount Bethel, PA 18343. The name and address of the individual interested in the business are Jesse Alvino at 209 State Street, Mount Bethel, PA 18343. This was filed in accordance with 54 Pa. C.S. 311.

Sept. 12An application for registration of

the fictitious name:L&M BARBER SHOP

306 Spring Garden St., Easton, PA 18042 has been filed in the Depart-ment of State at Harrisburg, PA, file date June 27, 2019 pursuant to the Fictitious Names Act, Act 1982-295. The name and address of the person who is a party to the registration are Robert A. Montanez, 306 Spring Garden St., Easton, PA 18042.

Sept. 12NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name was filed in the Department of State of the Com- monwealth of Pennsylvania on July 15, 2019 for:THE LEVANT MUSIC PROJECT

at: 2733 Buttermilk Rd., Hellertown, PA 18055. The name and address of the individual interested in the business are Kyla Manja at 2733 Buttermilk Rd., Hellertown, PA 18055. This was filed in accordance with 54 Pa. C.S. 311.

Sept. 12NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name was filed in the Department of State of the Com-

monwealth of Pennsylvania on July 25, 2019 for:

RELAYTAM’S TRADING POSTat: 803 American General Dr., Easton, PA 18040. The name and address of the individual interested in the business are Tammi Warchocki at 803 American General Dr., Easton, PA 18040. This was filed in accor-dance with 54 Pa. C.S. 311.

Sept. 12LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

NOTICENOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

the Certificate of Organization—Domestic Limited Liability Company has been filed with the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, Penn-sylvania, for the purpose of obtaining a Certificate of Organization for a Domestic Limited Liability Company to be organized under the provisions of Title 15, Corporation and Unincor-porated Associations at 15 Pa. C.S.A. 8901 et al., approved December 7, 1994, P.L. 703, No. 106 §4, effective in sixty (60) days.

Name of the Limited Liability Company:

J. SKILLMAN HOME & LAWN, LLC

Certificate of Organization filed: August 26, 2019.WILLIAM W. MATZ, JR., ESQUIRE

211 W. Broad StreetBethlehem, PA 18018-5517

Sept. 12CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY

NOTICESolarflux Energy Technologies,

Inc., a foreign business corporation incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with its principal office located at c/o Ben Franklin TechVen-tures, 116 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015, has applied for a Statement


9

of Registration to do business in Pennsylvania under the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Association Transac-tions Act. The street address in the association’s jurisdiction of formation is Corporation Service Co., 251 Little Falls Dr., Wilmington, DE 19808. The registered office in PA is located at 116 Research Dr., Bethlehem, PA 18015, and shall be deemed for venue and official publication purposes to be located in Northampton County.

Sept. 12IN 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; AccountantMARIE C. BIRMINGHAM; Robert

Birmingham, ExecutorFRANCES R. BICKERT; Mark R.

Bickert, ExecutorAUDIT NOTICE

All 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, SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 AT 9:00 A.M. IN COURTROOM #1.

Gina X. GibbsClerk of Orphans’ Court

Sept. 12, 19NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 3, 2019, the Petition of Beth Ann Bennett was filed in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at No. C-48CV2019-8037, seeking to change the name of Petitioner from Beth Ann Bennett to Elizabeth Ann Bennett. The Court

has fixed Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in courtroom #4 at the Northampton County Court-house as the date for the hearing of the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

Sept. 12NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 3, 2019, the Petition of Casey Sousa was filed in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas to change the name of her minor child from Nathan Csanadi to Nathan Sousa. The Court has fixed October 8, 2019 at 9:00 A.M. o’clock in Courtroom No. 4, at Northampton County Courthouse, 669 Washington St., Easton, PA 18042 as the time and date for the hearing on said Petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

Sept. 12NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on August 23, 2019, the Petition of Tan Blaney Johnson was filed in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at No. 2012-C-0000, seeking to change the name of Peti-tioner from Tan Blaney Johnson to Dancer Tan Blaney Johnson. The Court has fixed Friday, September 27, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., in courtroom #1 at the Northampton County Court-house as the date for hearing of the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

Sept. 12


10

NOTICE FOR CHANGE OF NAMENOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that

on July 29, 2019, the Petition of Destiny Diaz-Garcia was filed in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas at NO. 2012-C-0000, seeking to change the names of minor children from Jaylynn Marie Mumuni to Jaylynn Marie Rivera and Jadalee Rosa Mumuni to Jadalee Rosa Rivera. The court has fixed Wednesday, October 2, 2019 in courtroom #4 at the Northampton County Courthouse as the date for hearing the Petition. All persons interested in the proposed change of name may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the Petitioner should not be granted.

Sept. 12COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CIVIL DIVISION NORTHAMPTON COUNTYBank of New York Mellon

Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee for Mortgage Assets Management

Series I TrustPLAINTIFF

vs.Unknown Heirs, Successors,

Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest from or under

Barbara Ann Beers, deceased and Debra A. Martin, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, deceased Karen Werner, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, deceased

DEFENDANTSNO.: C-48-CV-2019-03839

NOTICE OF SHERIFF’S SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

TO: Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest from or under Barbara Ann Beers, deceased, 3300 Glen Avenue, Easton, PA 18045

Your house (real estate) at: 3300 Glen Avenue, Easton, PA 18045, M9SW1 12 7 0324, is scheduled to be sold at Sheriff ’s Sale on December 6, 2019 at: Northampton County Courthouse, 669 Washington Street, Easton, PA 18042 at 10:00 A.M. to enforce the court judgment of $207,572.66 obtained by Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee for Mortgage Assets Management Series I Trust against you.

NOTICE OF OWNER’S RIGHTSYOU MAY BE ABLE TO PREVENT

THIS SHERIFF’S SALETo prevent this Sheriff ’s Sale you

must take immediate action:1. The sale will be cancelled if you

pay back to Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee for Mortgage Assets Management Series I Trust the amount of the judgment plus costs or the back payments, late charges, costs, and reasonable attor-ney’s fees due. To find out how much you must pay, you may call: (610) 278-6800.

2. You may be able to stop the sale by filing a petition asking the Court to strike or open the judgment, if the judgment was improperly entered. You may also ask the Court to postpone the sale for good cause.

3. You may be able to stop the sale through other legal proceedings.

4. You may need an attorney to assert your rights. The sooner you contact one, the more chance you will have of stopping the sale. (See notice on page two of how to obtain an attorney.)

YOU MAY STILL BE ABLE TO SAVE YOUR PROPERTY

AND YOU HAVE OTHER RIGHTS EVEN IF THE SHERIFF’S SALE

DOES TAKE PLACE5. If the Sheriff’s Sale is not

stopped, your property will be sold to


11

the highest bidder. You may find out the price bid by calling (610) 278- 6800.

6. You may be able to petition the Court to set aside the sale if the bid price was grossly inadequate compared to the value of your property.

7. The sale will go through only if the buyer pays the Sheriff the full amount due in the sale. To find out if this has happened you may call (610) 559-3084.

8. If the amount due from the buyer is not paid to the Sheriff, you will remain the owner of the property as if the sale never happened.

9. You have a right to remain in the property until the full amount due is paid to the Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time, the buyer may bring legal proceedings to evict you.

10. You may be entitled to a share of the money, which was paid for your house. A schedule of distribution of the money bid for your house will be filed by the Sheriff no later than thirty days after the Sheriff Sale. This schedule will state who will be receiving the money. The money will be paid out in accordance with this schedule unless exceptions (reasons why the proposed distribution is wrong) are filed with the Sheriff within ten (10) days after the date of filing of said schedule.

11. You may also have other rights and defenses or ways of getting your house back, if you act immediately after the sale.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE LISTED BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

Northampton LawyerReferral CenterP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333PURSUANT TO THE FAIR DEBT

COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THIS LAW FIRM IS DEEMED TO BE A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMA-TION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

ALL THOSE CERTAIN lots or pieces of land, lying, situate and being in the Township of Palmer, County of Northampton and State of Pennsyl-vania, and being more particularly described as Lots Nos. 362, 363, 364, 365, and 366, in a tract of land known as Riverview Gardens, as shown and laid out on a certain Plan of Lots made and surveyed by the Paul G. Breining Company, Civil Engineers, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, said Plain being of record in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in Northampton County, at Easton, Pennsylvania, in Map Book Volume 9, Page 50.

PARCEL: M9SW1 12 7 0324.F O R I N F O R M A T I O N A L

PURPOSES ONLY: Being known as 3300 Glen Avenue, Easton, PA 18045.

BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Joseph J. Beers and Barbara Ann Beers, his wife by Deed dated June 14, 1960 and recorded June 16, 1960 in Book C-103, page 417, in the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for Northampton County, granted and conveyed unto Joseph J. Beers and Barbara Ann Beers, his wife, in fee. And the said Joseph J. Beers departed this life on September 21, 2008 thereby vesting title by operation of law in his wife, Barbara Ann Beers. And the said Barbara Ann Beers


12

having departed this life on November 28, 2018, title is vested in Debra A. Martin, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, Karen Werner, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, and Wayne Beers, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers as well as in any Unknown Heirs, Successors, and Assigns of Barbara Ann Beers.

1. NO: C-48-CV-2019-03839.2. ALL THOSE CERTAIN lots or

pieces of land, lying, situate and being in the Township of Palmer, County of Northampton and State of Pennsyl-vania, and being more particularly described as Lots Nos. 362, 363, 364, 365, and 366, in a tract of land known as Riverview Gardens, as shown and laid out on a certain Plan of Lots made and surveyed by the Paul G. Breining Company, Civil Engineers, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, said Plain being of record in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in Northampton County, at Easton, Pennsylvania, in Map Book Volume 9, Page 50.

3. Parcel #M9SW1 12 7 0324.4. 3300 Glen Avenue, Easton, PA

18045.5. Improvements: Single Family

Dwelling.6. Sold as the property of Unknown

Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest from or under Barbara Ann Beers, deceased, Debra A. Martin, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, deceased and Karen Werner, known Heir of Barbara Ann Beers, deceased.

7. Katherine M. Wolf, Esquire.8. Randall P. Miller, Sheriff.

CHRISTOPHER A. DeNARDO,ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 78447KRISTEN D. LITTLE, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 79992KEVIN S. FRANKEL, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 318323

MICHELLE L. McGOWAN,ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 62414LESLIE J. RASE, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 58365MORRIS A. SCOTT, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 83587ALISON H. TULIO, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 87075KATHERINE M. WOLF, ESQUIRE

PA I.D. NO. 314307SHAPIRO & DeNARDO, LLC

3600 Horizon DriveSuite 150King of Prussia, PA 19406Telephone: (610) 278-6800

Sept. 12IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION—LAWNOTICE OF ACTION IN

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURESIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE CO.

Plaintiffvs.

Angela Pachuta, as believed Heir and/or Administrator to the Estate

of Christopher S. Pachuta; Unknown Heirs and/or

Administrators of the Estate of Christopher S. Pachuta

DefendantsNO.: C-48-CV-2019-03156

TO: Unknown Heirs and/or Admin-istrators of the Estate of Christopher S. PachutaYou are hereby notified that

Plaintiff, Sierra Pacific Mortgage Co., filed an Action in Mortgage Foreclo-sure endorsed with a Notice to Defend, in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Penn-sylvania, docketed to No. C-48-CV-2019-03156, seeking to foreclose the mortgage secured by the real estate located at 540 Carlton Avenue, Bethlehem, PA 18015.


13

A copy of the Action in Mortgage Foreclosure will be sent to you upon request to the Attorney for the Plaintiff, Manley Deas Kochalski LLC, P.O. Box 165028, Columbus, OH 43216-5028. Phone (614) 220-5611.

You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims in this notice, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this publication, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICELawyer Referral Service (ARIS)P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

Sept. 12IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION—LAWCIVIL ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDTARIQ SEBRO-JOHNSON 159 West Kleinhans Street,

Easton, PA 18042Plaintiff

vs.

DARRIN J. ROBINSON, First Defendant, 31 North 13th Street,

Easton, PA 18042VICKI L. MEEKS, Second

Defendant 215 South 20th Street,

Easton, PA 18042Defendants

NO. C-0048-CV-2019-03306To: Darrin J. Robinson, First

DefendantThe Plaintiff is Tariq Sebro-

Johnson. The First Defendant is Darrin J. Robinson with a last known address of 31 North 13th Street, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042. The suit involves injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Tariq Sebro-Johnson, as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on or about April 25, 2017 on North 14th Street when he was a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by First Defendant, Darrin J. Robinson, who was traveling south on North 14th Street in Easton, Penn-sylvania.

You are hereby notified to plead to the above-referenced claim on or before twenty (20) days from the date of this publication, or a judgment will be entered against you.

NOTICE If you wish to defend, you must

enter a written appearance person-ally or by an attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the Court. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed against you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR


14

TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE:

NORTH PENNLEGAL SERVICES, INC. 559 Main StreetSuite 200 Bethlehem, PA 18018 (610) 317-8757 (Telephone) IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO HIRE A

LAWYER BUT DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:

LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333 (Telephone)

EDWARD P. SHAUGHNESSY, ESQUIRE

I.D. No. 52637Counsel for Plaintiff

731 Lehigh StreetEaston, PA 18042(610) 258-9955

Sept. 12NOTICE OF SHERIFF’S SALE OF

REAL PROPERTYLafayette Ambassador Bank

v.Leon W. Lafevre and Christy A. Lafevre

NO. C48-CV-2018-3283TO: Leon W. Lafevre and Christy A.

LafevreYour house (real estate) at 1175

Centre Street, Easton, Williams

Township, Pennsylvania is scheduled to be sold at Sheriff’s Sale on November 8, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., by the Northampton County Sheriff ’s Office, in the Council Chambers located at 660 Washington Street, Easton, Pennsylvania to enforce the court judgment of $49,051.98 obtained by Lafayette Ambassador Bank against you.

NOTICE OF OWNER’S RIGHTS YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PREVENT

THIS SHERIFF’S SALETo prevent this Sheriff ’s Sale you

must take immediate action:1. The sale will be canceled if you

pay to Lafayette Ambassador Bank (the amount of the judgment plus costs) (the back payments, late charges, costs, and reasonable attor-ney’s fees due). To find out how you must pay, you may call Shawn M. Long, Esquire (717) 299-5201.

2. You may be able to stop the sale by filing a petition asking the Court to strike or open the judgment, if the judgment was improperly entered. You may also ask the Court to postpone the sale for good cause.

3. You may also be able to stop the sale through other legal proceedings. You may need an attorney to assert your rights. The sooner you contact one, the more chance you will have of stopping the sale. (See notice below to find out how to obtain an attorney.)

YOU MAY STILL BE ABLE TO SAVE YOUR PROPERTY

AND YOU HAVE OTHER RIGHTS EVEN IF THE SHERIFF’S SALE

DOES TAKE PLACE1. If the Sheriff’s Sale is not

stopped, your property will be sold to the highest bidder. You may find out the price bid by calling the Sheriff of Northampton County at (610) 559-3781.


15

2. You may be able to petition the Court to set aside the sale if the bid price was grossly inadequate compared to the value of your property.

3. The sale will go through only if the buyer pays the Sheriff the full amount due in the sale. To find out if this has happened, you may call the Sheriff of Northampton County at (610) 559-3781.

4. If the amount due from the buyer is not paid to the Sheriff, you will remain the owner of the property as if the sale never happened.

5. You have a right to remain in the property until the full amount due is paid to the Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time, the buyer may bring legal proceedings to evict you.

6. You may be entitled to a share of the money which was paid for your house. A schedule of distribution of the money bid for your house will be filed by the Sheriff on or about December 8, 2019. This schedule will state who will be receiving that money. The money will be paid out ion accordance with this schedule unless exceptions (reasons why the proposed distribution is wrong) are filed with the Sheriff within ten (10) days after the filing of the schedule of distribution.

7. You may also have other rights and defenses, or ways of getting your house back, if you act immediately after the sale.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY

BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.

Lawyer Referral Service (ARIS)P.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

SHAWN M. LONG, ESQUIREBARLEY SNYDER

126 East King StreetLancaster, PA 17602

Sept. 12IN THE COURT

OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

In Re: K.A.E.B., a Minor ChildNO. 2019-0072

NOTICETO: Dwayne Williams, putative father

A Petition has been filed asking the Court to put an end to all rights you have to your child listed above. The Court has set a hearing concerning your parental rights to your child. That hearing will be held in Courtroom No. 4, Northampton County Govern-ment Center, 669 Washington Street, Easton, Pennsylvania, on September 24, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. You are warned that even if you fail to appear at the scheduled hearing, the hearing will go on without you and your rights to your child will be ended by the Court without your being present. You have the right to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer. You should take this paper to your lawyer at once. You may also have rights under ACT 101, and a notice explaining your rights under this act is included with all your legal papers.


16

If you cannot afford a lawyer, go to or telephone the office set forth below to find out where you can get legal help.

Lehigh ValleyLegal Services:North Penn Legal Services559 Main StreetSuite 200Bethlehem, PA 18018(610) 317-8757If you can afford to hire a lawyer

but do not have a lawyer, go to or telephone the office set forth below to find out where you can get legal help.

Lawyer Referral ServiceP.O. Box 4733Easton, PA 18043-4733(610) 258-6333

Sept. 12

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL NOTICEMISSING HEIR ESTATE NOTICE

WHEREAS, GLENN W. SNYDER, a resident of Palmer Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania passed away on July 19, 2019, at the age of 70; and

WHEREAS, the above-named decedent is thought to have fathered a male child, whose name is believed to be Ken or Kenneth but with whom, together with the son’s mother, whose name is unknown to the family of the decedent, the decedent never had any contact with after the son’s purported birth;

ACCORDINGLY, anyone with information concerning a potential heir of GLENN W. SNYDER fitting the above description should immedi-ately contact:

ROBERT A. NITCHKEY, JR., ESQUIRE

Counsel for the Estate ofGlenn W. Snyder

730 Washington StreetEaston, PA 18042PH: (610) 258-0821

Aug. 29; Sept. 5, 12


17

LEGAL AID ATTORNEY NEEDED— BETHLEHEM OFFICE

North Penn Legal Services has an opening for an attorney with a general civil practice focus. For information on the position and how to apply, visit www.northpennlegal.org/about/careers. EOE.

Sept. 5, 12——————SOLICITOR

Lehigh County Authority is seeking an in-house Solicitor to act as the sole legal advisor for the Authority. If you are an experienced attorney with a focus in municipal, contract, or real estate law, we encourage you to apply for this exciting opportunity. As the Solicitor you will work with the Board of Directors and staff members to provide significant administrative, strategic and legal support for the organization. Ideal candidates will have knowledge of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Authorities Act and will have established relationships within the community.

For more information and to apply: https://myhrpartnerinc.com/careers/at-our-clients/?p=job%2FoBSTafwg.

EOE, M/F/D/V.Sept. 12, 19, 26


18


19

489Com. of PA v. Aiken

Com. of PA v. Aiken

COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA v. KASHEEM ABDULLAH AIKEN, Defendant

Habeas Corpus—Suppression—Fourth Amendment—Seizure—Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Defendant is charged with criminal homicide and criminal conspiracy. Defendant filed Omnibus Pretrial Motions containing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) and a “Motion to Suppress Evidence” (“Suppression Motion”). In his Habeas Petition, De-fendant alleged that the Commonwealth lacked sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against him for the charges bound over to this court. The court found that the Common-wealth established a prima facie case for both of Defendant’s charges and denied his Habeas Petition.

In his Suppression Motion, Defendant sought to suppress statements that he made in an interview with police based on an alleged violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. With regard to Defendant’s Fourth Amendment argument, the court found that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant was unlawfully seized by police without the requisite level of suspicion prior to the interview. Moreover, the court found that Defendant’s statements made during the interview must be suppressed as fruit of the poison-ous tree because the statements were obtained by exploiting Defendant’s unlawful seizure. Because the court granted Defendant’s Suppression Motion based on his Fourth Amendment argument, it did not reach Defendant’s Fifth Amendment argument regarding Miranda warn-ings.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania, Criminal—No. C-48-CR-1175-2018.

William M. Blake, Esquire and Rebecca Kulik, Esquire, for the Commonwealth.

Christopher Shipman, Esquire and Molly M. Heidorn, Esquire, for Defendant.

Order of the Court entered on April 18, 2019 by Beltrami, J.

OPINION

This case is before the court on Defendant’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“Habeas Petition”), contained in Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motions filed on October 4, 2018, and Defendant’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” (“Suppression Motion”), filed on December 21, 2018. On December 14, 2018, a hearing on the Habeas Petition was held. At the hearing, the parties agreed to submit the transcript from the preliminary hearing held on April 10, 2018, along with supplemental evidence pre-sented by Defendant, as the record for the decision.1 On January 31, 2019, a hearing on the Suppression Motion was held. Briefs have been filed, and the matters are ready for disposition.———

1 The transcript and exhibits from the preliminary hearing were marked and admitted into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit 1. (N.T., 12/14/2018, at 9:1-16.)

20

Com. of PA v. Aiken490 Vol. 60

The court begins with Defendant’s Habeas Petition and makes the following findings of fact. In February 2017, Tariq Page (“Page”) and Alan Young (“Young”) were in simultaneous romantic relationships with the victim in this case, Teayahe Glover (“Glover”). (Habeas Hearing Ex. C-1 at 34:11-35:12.) Glover resided on Seneca Street in Bethlehem with her mother. (Id. at 36:22-24.) On February 2, 2017, Young invited Page to a party at his residence. (Id. at 38:3-7.) The pair became involved in a physical altercation, and Page shot Young with a handgun multiple times. (Id. at 38:7-10.) Subsequently, Page pleaded guilty to attempted homicide and is currently serving a sentence of seven to fourteen years in state prison. (Id. at 39:21-25.)

On February 8, 2017, the instant homicide occurred in Bethlehem. (See id. at 41:2-6.) At 1:43 a.m. on that date, the Bethlehem Police Depart-ment received a call reporting gunshots. (Id. at 42:16-19.) The original caller and other individuals in the area told the responding officer that the shots came from the area of Fiot Street and Sioux Street. (Id. at 43:4-9.) At 2:23 a.m., the Bethlehem Police Department received another call stating that an unresponsive individual was found on the corner of Sassafras Street and Sioux Street in Bethlehem. (Id. at 41:10-16.)

Shortly thereafter, Detective Christopher Beebe (“Detective Beebe”) arrived at the scene and observed that the victim had sustained multiple, close-contact gunshot wounds. (Id. at 50:19-51:7.) The coroner testified that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds and that the cause and manner of death was homicide. (Id. at 24:5-15.) Detective Del Rosario also arrived at the scene and was able to identify Glover as the victim based on his involvement in the investigation of the previous shooting involving Page and Young. (Id. at 54:18-24.)

Thereafter, Detective Beebe informed Glover’s mother, Tanya Miller (“Miller”), that Glover was the victim of a suspected homicide. (Id. at 57:16-18, 58:7-11.) Miller informed Detective Beebe that people in the community had blamed Glover for the shooting involving Page and Young. (Id. at 59:17-19.) Miller also told Detective Beebe that Defendant had called her five days earlier and stated something to the effect of “I don’t want this to sound like I’m threatening you, but [Glover] needs to give back [Young’s] works and money.” (Id. at 60:3-22, 62:3-7.) This statement was in reference to Glover retaining money and drugs that belonged to Young after he was shot by Page. (Id. at 62:8-21.) Miller also told Detective Beebe that her daughter had recently been worried about her safety after receiving death threats from individuals blaming her for the Young shooting. (Id. at 64:4-8.) Miller also informed Detective Beebe that two individuals had knocked on her door at approximately 12:30 a.m. that morning. (Id. at 64:9-25.) When Glover went to answer the door, she observed two African-American males running from the house. (Id. at 65:1-6.)

21


At approximately 1:12 a.m. that morning, Glover sent a Facebook message to Xavier Snyder (“Snyder”) and asked him if he had just knocked on her door.2 (Id. at 69:7-20.) Snyder responded that he had and that he was just there to ask her to smoke marijuana with him. (Id. at 69:22-70:1.) After exchanging additional messages, Glover agreed to meet Snyder to smoke marijuana and told him that she would be leaving her house shortly. (Id. at 70:4-9.)

Officer Lou Csaszar (“Officer Csaszar”) was on duty the morning of the homicide. (Id. at 76:16-77:5.) Officer Csaszar was also involved in the investigation of Young’s shooting. (Id. at 77:7-10.) At approximately 1:30 a.m. on the morning of Glover’s death, Officer Csaszar recognized Defen-dant walking in Bethlehem approximately halfway between Glover’s resi-dence and the location where her body was found. (Id. at 78:2-12.) Video surveillance footage from St. Luke’s Hospital, which is where Young was recovering from the previous shooting, showed Defendant leaving the hospital at approximately 10:00 p.m. on the night before Glover’s death and returning to the hospital to visit Young at approximately 5:30 a.m. the next morning, approximately four hours after Glover was killed. (Id. at 81:2-19.)

Snyder became a subject of the investigation into Glover’s death after police learned that he had made statements about his involvement in the homicide to Shakiya Bullock (“Bullock”), who is the granddaughter of Young’s father’s wife. (Id. at 83:9-24.) Bullock informed Detective Beebe that Snyder told Young’s father that he was involved in the Glover shooting. (Id. at 85:14-20.) Thereafter, Young’s father went to the Bethlehem police station and stated that Snyder admitted to killing Glover. (Id. at 87:11-16.)

Thereafter, the police interviewed Snyder, who stated the following. (Id. at 88:19-24.) Glover was blamed for Young’s shooting, and after that shooting, Defendant told Young, “[D]on’t worry, Pops, we’re going to take care of this.” (Id. at 89:4-17.) Just before Glover’s death, Defendant told Snyder to lure Glover from her home and instructed him on what to include in a message to her. (Id. at 91:5-10.) At that point, Snyder believed that Defendant was going to “kick [Glover’s] ass, beat the shit out of her.” (Id. at 91:13-22.) When Snyder eventually met up with Glover, he began to walk with her while Defendant trailed behind them. (Id. at 92:4-10.) Once Snyder and Glover reached the corner of Sassafras Street and Sioux Street, Snyder observed Defendant run up to the left side of Glover and shoot her in the head. (Id. at 92:11-16.) Defendant fired additional shots at Glover as she was falling to the ground, after which he grabbed Snyder and stated, “[L]et’s go, or I’m going to shoot you next.” (Id. at 92:17-23.)———

2 Snyder has also been charged with criminal homicide and conspiracy in connection with Glover’s death at docket number C-48-CR-1169-2018.

22


Defendant’s Habeas Petition alleges that the Commonwealth lacks sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against him for the charges bound over to this court.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus is the correct method for a defendant to test whether the Commonwealth has, before trial, established a prima facie case. ... To demonstrate that a prima facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of every material element of the charged offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity therein. ... In an effort to meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may submit ad-ditional proof. ...

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required at the habeas stage, but the Commonwealth’s evidence must be such that, if accepted as true, it would justify a trial court in submit-ting the case to a jury. ... Additionally, in the course of deciding a habeas petition, a court must view the evidence and its rea-sonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Common-wealth. ... Suspicion and conjecture, however, are unaccepta -ble. ...

Commonwealth v. Predmore, 199 A.3d 925, 928-29 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quot-ing Commonwealth v. Carroll, 936 A.2d 1148, 1152 (Pa. Super. 2007), abrogation on other grounds recognized in Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2016)).

In this case, Defendant is charged with criminal homicide3 and con-spiracy to commit criminal homicide.4

The crime of criminal homicide is defined as follows: “A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.” 18 Pa. C.S.A. §2501(a). At the preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth presented suf-ficient evidence to justify submitting this charge to a jury. Detective Beebe testified that Snyder told police that Defendant instructed him to lure Glover out of her home, trailed behind the two as they walked, ran up to Glover, and shot her in the head.5 Accepting this evidence as true, as a trial court must for purposes of ruling on a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case that Defen-dant intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused Glover’s death. It will be for the jury to determine whether or not to accept Snyder’s statements.

———3 18 Pa. C.S.A. §2501(a).4 Id. §903(a)(1).5 Hearsay evidence may be relied upon at a preliminary hearing to establish a prima

facie case. See Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349, 357 (Pa. Super. 2015).

23


The crime of criminal conspiracy, as charged in this case, is defined as follows:

(a) Definition of conspiracy.—A person is guilty of con-spiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; ...

...(e) Overt Act.—No person may be convicted of con-

spiracy to commit a crime unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.

18 Pa. C.S.A. §903(a)(1), (e).To establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, the evidence must showthat the defendant entered an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Rios, 546 Pa. 271, 684 A.2d 1025, 1030 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1231, 117 S.Ct. 1825, 137 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1997), citing 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903.

The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the common understanding that a particular criminal objective is to be ac-complished. Commonwealth v. Keefer, 338 Pa.Super. 184, 487 A.2d 915, 918 (1985). Mere association with the perpetrators, mere presence at the scene, or mere knowledge of the crime is insufficient. Id. Rather, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant shared the criminal intent, i.e., that the [defendant] was ‘an active participant in the criminal enterprise and that he had knowledge of the conspiratorial agreement.’ Hennigan, 753 [A.2d] at 253. The defendant does not need to commit the overt act; a co-conspirator may commit the overt act. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d 778, 784 (Pa.Super.1998) (en banc), ap-peal denied, 559 Pa. 689, 739 A.2d 1056 (1999).

A conspiracy is almost always proved through circumstan-tial evidence. Commonwealth v. Swerdlow, 431 Pa.Super. 453, 636 A.2d 1173, 1176 (1994). ‘The conduct of the parties and the circumstances surrounding their conduct may create “a web of evidence” linking the accused to the alleged conspiracy ... .’ Johnson, 719 A.2d at 785. The evidence must, however, ‘rise above mere suspicion or possibility of guilty collusion.’ Swerd-low, 636 A.2d at 1177 (citation omitted).[The Superior] Court has identified factors to be considered:

24


Among the circumstances which are relevant, but not sufficient by themselves, to prove a corrupt confederation are: (1) an association between alleged conspirators; (2) knowledge of the commission of the crime; (3) presence at the scene of the crime; and (4) in some situations, participation in the object of the conspiracy. The presence of such circumstances may furnish a web of evidence linking an accused to an alleged conspiracy ... when viewed in conjunction with each other and in the context in which they occurred. Commonwealth v. Carter, 272 Pa.Super. 411, 416 A.2d 523 (1979).Commonwealth v. Olds, 322 Pa.Super. 442, 469 A.2d 1072, 1075 (1983). See also, Commonwealth v. Azim, 313 Pa.Super. 310, 459 A.2d 1244 (1983).

Once there is evidence of the presence of a conspiracy, conspirators are liable for acts of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Commonwealth v. Stocker, 424 Pa.Super. 189, 622 A.2d 333, 342 (1993).

Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2002).Here, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to justify

submitting the conspiracy charge to a jury. Detective Beebe testified that Snyder stated that Defendant instructed him to lure Glover out of her home to meet up with her early in the morning on the day she was killed. Snyder knew that the purpose behind this meeting was, at the very least, for De-fendant to “beat the shit out of ” Glover. Moreover, after Young was shot, Snyder knew that Defendant had told Young that they were “going to take care of this.” A reasonable inference can be drawn that this statement ref-erenced the pair’s plan to harm Glover, since most of the people involved blamed Glover for the Young shooting. Moreover, it is clear that an overt act occurred. According to Snyder, the pair fully executed their plan, which resulted in Glover’s death. Accepting all of this evidence as true and con-sidering all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case that Defendant conspired with Snyder to kill Glover.

For all of the above reasons, the court must deny Defendant’s Ha-beas Petition.

The court now turns to Defendant’s Suppression Motion and makes the following findings of fact. On February 14, 2017, the Bethlehem Police Department received a call from an Easton police officer that Defendant was seen at a liquor store with a female companion in the Valley Farm Market shopping center on Stefko Boulevard in Bethlehem. (N.T., 1/31/2019, at 5:8-6:1, 8:8-16.) The reporting officer recognized Defendant from a patrol alert issued by Detective Beebe, which featured two photo-graphs of Defendant and stated:

25


The above named male is a PERSON OF INTEREST in the homicide which occurred on February 8, 2017[,] at Sioux Street and Sassafras Street. [Defendant] is a known member of the ‘Hoover Crips’ and should be considered armed and danger-ous. An informant has advised CID detectives that this male was in the area during the homicide and made a reference to the victim ‘getting what she deserved[.’] The male was de-scribed to have been wearing all black and was in possession of a black ski mask. If located, USE EXTREME CAUTION and notify a member of CID. NO WARRANTS EXIST AT THIS TIME.

(Id.; Suppression Hearing Ex. C-1.)After the initial call, Sergeant Christopher Benton (“Sergeant Ben-

ton”) traveled to the shopping center and identified Defendant. (Id. at 9:9-22.) Sergeant Benton was in his police uniform and arrived in a marked police car. (Id. at 11:3-6.) At least one additional uniformed officer arrived at the scene for backup in a marked police car. (See id. at 10:20-11:2, 18:1-3.) It was daytime, and there were other people in the area shopping. (Id. at 9:23-10:16.)

Sergeant Benton approached Defendant outside of the liquor store and told him that Detective Beebe wanted to speak with him about an in-cident. (Id. at 11:12-19.) While Sergeant Benton spoke to Defendant, the backup officer stood behind Sergeant Benton. (Id. at 18:1-9.) Sergeant Benton asked Defendant if he would come to the police station to talk, and Defendant did not object. (Id. at 11:20-22, 19:24-20:2.) Sergeant Benton escorted Defendant to his police vehicle, patted him down for weapons, and took his cell phone and some money from his pocket. (Id. at 11:22-12:1.) Thereafter, Sergeant Benton told Defendant that he was going to drive him to the police station and that, although Defendant was not under arrest, he was going to handcuff him for safety purposes until they arrived at the police station, at which point he would remove the handcuffs and Defendant would speak to Detective Beebe. (Id. at 12:3-10.) Sergeant Benton did not give Defendant the option to follow him to the station in his own car. (Id. at 22:1-4.)

Sergeant Benton proceeded to place Defendant in handcuffs, behind his back, and placed him into the back of his marked police car. (Id. at 12:11-12, 21:9-11.) A cage separated the front and back seats of the police car, which Sergeant Benton testified is used as “a form of control.” (Id. at 28:17-29:1.) Sergeant Benton then explained to Defendant’s companion that she could follow them to the station because Defendant “was probably going to be released after the interview and she would probably need to drive him home.” (Id. at 12:12-19) (emphasis added). According to Sergeant Benton, Defendant “did not argue or give [him] a hard time about anything. He seemed willing to come in.” (Id. at 13:1-6.) Although Sergeant Benton

26


did not tell Defendant that he was required to come with him, he also never informed Defendant that he was free to leave or that he could refuse to come with him. (Id. at 13:10-12, 21:12-18.) Once Defendant was placed into Sergeant Benton’s police car, Sergeant Benton drove Defendant to the police station, with the backup officer following behind them in his marked police car. (Id. at 14:12-15, 24:16-24.) When they arrived at the police sta-tion, Sergeant Benton escorted Defendant to the interview room and re-moved the handcuffs. (Id. at 24:25-25:5.)

At that point, Detective Beebe entered the interview room and intro-duced himself. (Id. at 36:5-6.) He offered Defendant a refreshment and told him that he was not under arrest and that he did not have to speak to police if he did not want to. (Id. at 36:7-10.) The interview room was small and contained no windows. (Id. at 37:20-21.) The door was closed but unlocked, and there were no obstacles or persons blocking Defendant’s path from his chair to the door. (Id. at 38:11-19.) Detective Del Rosario was also in the room. (Id. at 39:8.)

Detective Beebe told Defendant that he was investigating the Glov-er homicide and that he wanted to speak to him as a witness, not a suspect. (Id. at 38:20-39:6.) At one point during questioning, Defendant told Detec-tive Beebe that he had been arrested multiple times in the past and that he felt like the police were trying to implicate him in the homicide. (Id. at 41:10-14.) Detective Beebe responded by telling Defendant that he was not a suspect in the case. (Id. at 41:14-15.)

The interview continued for approximately forty to fifty minutes before Detective Beebe took a break to review his notes. (Id. at 42:16-23.) After a five- to ten-minute break, the interview continued for another twenty to twenty-five minutes. (Id. at 43:1-11.) Eventually, the interview became slightly adversarial, and Detective Del Rosario told Defendant “you can bounce ... but we’re taking [your] phone” because the officers believed that Defendant had made inconsistent statements during the interview. (Id. at 48:6-49:5.) When the interview concluded, the police did not return Defendant’s cell phone because they planned to conduct a download of its contents based on Defendant’s allegedly inconsistent statements.6 (Id. at 47:2-11.) Defendant left the police station on his own. (Id. at 44:12-14.) The police did not provide Defendant with Miranda7 warnings at any time. (Id. at 49:7-9.)

Defendant argues that he was subjected to an unlawful seizure during his initial encounter with Sergeant Benton. Thus, Defendant argues that his statements during the interview with Detective Beebe must be suppressed ———

6 The court notes that any evidence obtained from the cell phone download is not at issue, as the Commonwealth does not intend to utilize any such evidence. Thus, the only suppression issue before the court pertains to Defendant’s statements made during the interview. (N.T., 1/31/2019, at 3:10-25.)

7 See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

27


as fruit of the poisonous tree.8 Defendant also argues that he was subjected to a custodial interrogation without being read his Miranda rights. Thus, Defendant argues that all statements that he made during the interview must be suppressed.

When a defendant files a motion to suppress evidence, “[t]he Com-monwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights.” Pa. R.Crim.P. 581(H). The Commonwealth can meet this burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Commonwealth v. McCleary, 193 A.3d 387, 390 (Pa. Super. 2018).

The court begins with Defendant’s position that his initial encounter with law enforcement constituted an unlawful seizure. Police interactions with citizens have been categorized three ways, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has addressed these categories as follows:

... The first of these is a ‘mere encounter’ (or request for information)[,] which need not be supported by any level of suspicion, but carries no official compulsion to stop or to re-spond. The second, an ‘investigative detention[,]’ must be supported by a reasonable suspicion; it subjects a suspect to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coer-cive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Finally, an arrest or ‘custodial detention’ must be sup-ported by probable cause.Commonwealth v. Ellis, 541 Pa. 285, 662 A.2d 1043, 1047 (1995) (citations omitted). Thus, pursuant to the Fourth Amend-ment, a person may not be lawfully seized, either by means of an investigative detention or a custodial detention, unless the police possess the requisite level of suspicion.

Commonwealth v. Reid, 571 Pa. 1, 26, 811 A.2d 530, 544-45 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 850 (2003). The court elaborated upon the legality of a seizure as follows:

Indeed, the protections provided by the Fourth Amend-ment for a seizure, i.e., an investigative or custodial detention, are not implicated unless a person’s movement has been con-strained by physical force or a show of authority. ... In distin-guishing a mere encounter from a seizure, a court must decide whether based on all the circumstances surrounding the inter-action between the police and the individual in question, a reasonable person would have believed that he was free to

———8 “The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained due to an unconstitutional

search or seizure cannot be used against a defendant. ... The exclusionary rule also applies to any evidence discovered as a result of the original illegal police conduct; such evidence is termed ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 A.3d 611, 619 (Pa. Super. 2010).

28


decline the police’s requests and terminate the interaction with the police. ...

Id. at 26-27, 811 A.2d at 545 (citations omitted). The court identified the following factors as relevant in assessing whether an interaction between the police and a citizen would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was free to terminate the interaction:

the existence and nature of any prior seizure; whether there was a clear and expressed endpoint to any such prior detention; the character of police presence and conduct in the encounter under review (for example—the number of officers, whether they were uniformed, whether police isolated the subjects, physi-cally touched them or directed their movement, the content or manner of interrogatories or statements, and ‘excesses’ factors stressed by the United States Supreme Court); geographic, temporal and environmental elements associated with the en-counter; and the presence or absence of express advice that the citizen—subject was free to decline the request for consent to search.

Id. at 27 n.27, 811 A.2d at 545 n.27 (quoting Commonwealth v. Freeman, 563 Pa. 82, 757 A.2d 903, 907 (2000)). Thus, a determination regarding what level of interaction has occurred between police and a citizen is based upon the specific facts of each case.

Here, the court finds that Defendant was unlawfully seized during his initial encounter with law enforcement. Sergeant Benton arrived at the scene in a marked police car and was wearing his uniform. A uniformed backup officer also arrived at the scene in a marked police car and stood behind Sergeant Benton during the interaction. Although Sergeant Benton testified that he asked Defendant if he would agree to come with him for questioning, Sergeant Benton could not recall a specific statement that Defendant made to indicate that he voluntarily agreed to do so. Rather, the following testimony from Sergeant Benton merely established that Defen-dant was cooperative and that he did not express any objection to going with Sergeant Benton:

Q And when you said to [Defendant] that there’s a detec-tive at Bethlehem who wants to speak with you, what, if any-thing, was his response?

A Again, our conversation was not irregular in any way. We had a fine conversation. He was cooperative with me. I don’t recall being asked a lot of questions about it. I did express interest in him coming with me to the Bethlehem police depart-ment, and he didn’t seem to have any hesitation about doing that.

THE COURT: I believe what he is asking you is what did he actually say to you.

29


THE WITNESS: As for his actual words—THE COURT: When you first said you wanted him to

talk to you.THE WITNESS: I expressed that Detective Beebe

wanted to speak with him. He didn’t oppose it. Again our con-versation was fine and there was no objection.BY [DEFENSE COUNSEL]:

Q Do you recall anything that he said to you in the course—specifically that he said to you in the course of this conversation?

A Exact wording, no. I know that our conversation outside of the store was brief and that, again, he did not have any objec-tion to coming with me.

(N.T., 1/31/2019, at 19:6-20:10) (emphasis added).Thereafter, Sergeant Benton took Defendant to his police vehicle,

patted him down, and seized his cell phone and some money.9 Although Sergeant Benton told Defendant that he was not under arrest, he never told Defendant that he was free to leave or that he did not have to go to the police station with him. Sergeant Benton placed Defendant in handcuffs, behind his back, and placed him into the back seat of his police car, with a cage separating the front and back seats. Although Sergeant Benton testified that he handcuffed Defendant for safety purposes, there is no evidence that Defendant had done anything during the interaction to cause Sergeant Benton to fear for his or Defendant’s safety.10 Sergeant Benton admitted that this procedure was used as a form of control. Although Defendant and his companion could easily have followed Sergeant Benton to the police station in their own car, Sergeant Benton did not give Defendant that option.

As noted above, the relevant question to determine whether a seizure occurred, regardless of whether the interaction constituted an investigative or custodial detention, is whether Defendant’s movement was constrained by physical force or a show of authority.11 If so, the court must also deter-mine whether the circumstances surrounding the interaction suggested that Defendant would have believed that he was not free to decline Sergeant Benton’s request or to terminate the interaction.———

9 There was no evidence offered as to why Sergeant Benton seized Defendant’s prop-erty during the interaction.

10 The court acknowledges that the patrol alert identified Defendant as potentially being armed and dangerous. However, Sergeant Benton searched Defendant for weapons before placing him in his police car.

11 The distinction between an investigative detention and a custodial detention is not particularly relevant in this case, since the Commonwealth does not contend that it had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain Defendant. Rather, the Commonwealth’s sole position is that the initial interaction between Sergeant Benton and Defendant consti-tuted a mere encounter and, thus, was not a seizure of any kind. Thus, the only necessary inquiry is to determine whether Defendant was seized.

30


Here, the court finds that Defendant’s movement was clearly con-strained by both physical force and a show of authority when he was ap-proached by two uniformed police officers, was asked to come with them for questioning, was isolated from his companion, was taken to a marked police car, was frisked and had his cell phone and money seized, was handcuffed behind his back, was placed into the back of a police car with a cage separating the front and back seats, and was transported to the police station with a marked police car following.12 Moreover, all of the circum-stances discussed above could have caused Defendant to reasonably believe that he was not free to decline Sergeant Benton’s request or to terminate the interaction at any time. Lastly, the Commonwealth did not present any evidence suggesting that it had either probable cause or reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot at the time of Defendant’s detention. To the contrary, the Commonwealth specifically argues that Defendant was not suspected of a crime at that time and that he was merely being treated as a witness in the Glover investigation.

In support of its argument that Defendant was not seized, the Com-monwealth relies heavily on the fact that Sergeant Benton told Defendant that he was not under arrest. However, the court reiterates that investigative detentions, custodial detentions, and formal arrests all constitute seizures under the Fourth Amendment. An investigative detention, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion, does not require an individual to be subjected to a formal arrest or a custodial detention. Moreover, “[a] ‘cus-todial detention’ must be supported by probable cause; it is deemed to arise when the conditions and/or duration of an investigating detention become so coercive as to be the functional equivalent of arrest. ... Formal arrest requires probable cause, and needs no further definition.” Commonwealth v. Douglass, 372 Pa. Super. 227, 239, 539 A.2d 412, 418 (1988) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Thus, Pennsylvania courts have recognized a clear distinction between custodial detentions, i.e., detentions that are the functional equivalent of an arrest, and actual arrests. Lastly, although Ser-geant Benton told Defendant that he was not under arrest, “a police officer’s statement to a suspect that he or she is ‘not under arrest is not conclusive of whether an arrest [or seizure] was actually effectuated.’ ” Commonwealth v. Smith, 172 A.3d 26, 32 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Rosas, 875 A.2d 341, 348 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

In this regard, the court finds the following testimony from Detective Beebe illuminating:———

12 See Commonwealth v. Medley, 531 Pa. 279, 286, 612 A.2d 430, 433 (1992) (“[I]t would be difficult to imagine a situation more likely to produce a belief that one’s freedom of movement is restricted than that of being frisked, handcuffed, and transported to a police station.”). Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s analysis in Medley was in relation to a custodial interrogation argument under the Fifth Amendment, it is still pertinent to the court’s analysis of whether Defendant’s initial encounter constituted a seizure.

31


Q Did you know how [Defendant] was brought [to the police station]?

A I did. He came back with Sergeant Benton, is what I was told.

Q Did you know he was handcuffed behind his back in the back of a police cruiser, brought there, and then put di-rectly from that car into the room where you found him?

A I would believe so. Yes, that’s what we do.Q Did that concern you at all that a person in such a

position might believe they were in custody?A No.Q Do you agree that the procedure followed with regard

to bringing [Defendant] there and interviewing him is the same procedure as if someone were under arrest?

A Up to a point that we escort them into the police depart-ment and take the handcuffs off of them.

Q And he was handcuffed until he was put in the room, correct?

A He was handcuffed, yes.Q All right. That’s the same procedure as if you are under

arrest, correct?A Up to the point where we remove the handcuffs, yes.

(N.T., 1/31/2019, at 49:10-50:12) (emphasis added).Thus, according to Detective Beebe’s own testimony, up until the

point that Defendant was placed in the interview room and his handcuffs were removed, his interaction with Sergeant Benton followed the same procedures as a typical arrest. With this in mind, it would be difficult to conclude that Sergeant Benton’s interaction with Defendant did not con-stitute a seizure of some kind. The question of whether Defendant was in custody at the time of the interrogation is distinct from the court’s Fourth Amendment analysis regarding unlawful seizures.

For all of the reasons discussed above, the court finds that the total-ity of the circumstances suggest that Defendant was seized. Since the Commonwealth concedes that it did not have reasonable suspicion or prob-able cause to seize Defendant, the seizure was unlawful, regardless of whether it constituted an investigative detention, a custodial detention, or a formal arrest.

Next, the court must determine whether Defendant’s statements at the police station must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

... In reviewing challenges to seizures under the Fourth Amendment, we engage in the following analysis. First, we determine whether there was a seizure. If there was, we then must ascertain whether the seizure was justified by the requisite level of suspicion. If it was, there was no constitutional viola-

32


tion. But, if it was not, then the seizure was illegal, and we must determine what must occur with regard to any evidence obtained following the illegal seizure. ... In other words, we must deter-mine whether the evidence was ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’

In Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the United States Supreme Court articulated the test for determining whether evidence must be suppressed. There, the Court held that evidence constitutes poisonous fruit, and, thus, must be suppressed, if, ‘granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. 407 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Notably, this bedrock principle contains no independent assess-ment of the moving party’s expectation of privacy, nor has the United States Supreme Court ever attached such a requirement to Wong Sun’s exploitation test. The inquiry simply is wheth-er the evidence was obtained via exploitation of the initial il-legality.

Commonwealth v. Shabezz, 641 Pa. 92, 111, 166 A.3d 278, 288-89 (2017) (citation omitted).

[C]hallenged evidence may be purged of the primary taint only 1) if it results from ‘an intervening independent act of a free will,’ Wong Sun, supra, 371 U.S. at 486, 83 S.Ct. at 416, or 2) if the connection between the [seizure] and the evidence ... has ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’ Id. at 491, 83 S.Ct. at 419 (citation omitted).In Commonwealth ex rel. Craig v. Maroney, 348 F.2d 22, 29 (3d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1019, 86 S.Ct. 1966, 16 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1966), the Third Circuit noted two specific fac-tors of major significance in determining the relationship be-tween an illegal [seizure] and subsequent [statement]:

‘(a) the proximity of an initial illegal [seizure] to the procurement of the [statement]; and

‘(b) the intervention of other circumstances subsequent to an illegal [seizure] which provide a cause so unrelated to that initial illegality that the acquired evidence may not reason-ably be said to have been directly derived from, and thereby tainted by, that illegal [seizure].’[Maroney, 348 F.2d at 29.]

[The Pennsylvania Supreme] Court, in Commonwealth v. Bishop, 425 Pa. 175, 183, 228 A.2d 661, 666, cert. denied

33


389 U.S. 875, 88 S.Ct. 168, 19 L.Ed.2d 159 (1967), subse-quently explained the Wong Sun test this way:‘(I)f the connection between the [seizure] and the [statement] is shown to be so vague or tenuous “as to dissipate the taint” [o]r “sufficiently an act of free will,” the [statement] is admis-sible, despite the illegality of the [seizure]. By “sufficiently an act of free will,” we mean that not only was the [statement] truly voluntary, [b]ut also free of any element of coerciveness due to the unlawful [seizure]. The burden of proof, of course, is upon the Commonwealth.’ (Footnote omitted.)

[Bishop, 228 A.2d at 666.]In re Betrand, 451 Pa. 381, 388-89, 303 A.2d 486, 490 (1973). An officer merely informing an individual that he is not required to answer questions is insufficient to purge the taint of an unlawful seizure. See id. at 390-91, 303 A.2 at 491 (holding statements made after mere recital of Miranda warnings did not constitute an intervening independent act of free will suf-ficient to purge the taint of an illegal arrest).

Here, the court finds that any statements made by Defendant during Detective Beebe’s interview must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. It is clear that any incriminating statements made by Defendant during the interview were obtained through exploiting the initial unlawful seizure. Challenged evidence may be purged of a primary taint only if the evidence results from an intervening independent act of free will or if the connection between the detention and the evidence has become sufficiently attenuated. Here, the interview took place directly after Defendant was unlawfully seized. Thus, the attenuation principle does not apply. With regard to a potential intervening independent act of free will, the strongest argument for the Commonwealth would be that Detective Beebe told Defendant that he did not have to answer his questions in the interview room. However, pursuant to Betrand, merely informing an individual that he does not have to answer questions is insufficient to purge the taint of an immediately preceding unlawful seizure. Defendant remained restrained until he reached the interview room, at which point his handcuffs were removed and he was seated inside the room with the door closed. Despite Detective Beebe’s statement that Defendant did not have to answer any questions, the Com-monwealth has not met its burden to show that it did not obtain Defendant’s statements by exploiting his unlawful seizure.

For all of the above reasons, any statements made by Defendant dur-ing the interview with Detective Beebe are inadmissible. Accordingly, the court must grant Defendant’s Suppression Motion. Because the court will grant Defendant’s Suppression Motion based on his illegal seizure, it need not reach his Fifth Amendment argument pursuant to Miranda.

WHEREFORE, the court enters following:34


ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2019, Defendant’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” filed on October 4, 2018, is hereby DENIED. Defendant’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” (“Suppression Motion”), filed on December 21, 2018, is hereby GRANTED. Any statements made by Defendant during the interview by police on February 14, 2017, shall be inadmissible at trial.

35

DELI TO: VER

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, September 16, 2019

VOL. LX EASTON, PA September 12, 2019 NO. 89 Commonwealth ...€¦ · Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The...

Documents

Transcript of VOL. LX EASTON, PA September 12, 2019 NO. 89 Commonwealth ...€¦ · Robert Van Horn, Esquire, The...