THE COURTS

Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[234 PA. CODE CH. 4]

Suppression Motions in Summary Cases

[34 Pa.B. 34]

   The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt new Rule 450 (Suppression of Evidence). This new rule would require that suppression motions in summary cases only may be handled in the court of common pleas when a summary case is appealed for a trial de novo. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

   The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. Please note that the Committee's Report should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Reports.

   The text of the proposed new rule precedes the Report. We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal in writing to the Committee through counsel,

Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road, Suite 800
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
fax: (717) 795-2106
e-mail: criminal.rules@pacourts.us

no later than Friday, January 23, 2004.

By the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee

JOHN J. DRISCOLL,   
Chair

Annex A

TITLE 234.  RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 4.  PROCEDURES IN SUMMARY CASES

PART E.  General Procedures in Summary Cases

Rule 450.  Suppression of Evidence.

   No district justice shall entertain a defendant's motion to suppress any evidence in a summary case alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant's rights. All such motions shall be made in the court of common pleas on an appeal for a trial de novo as provided in Rule 581.

Comment

   This rule was adopted in 2004 to provide the procedures in summary cases for the suppression of evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant's rights. See Rule 581 concerning suppression of evidence in court cases.

Official Note: Rule 450 adopted ____, effective ____.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the proposed new rule published at 34 Pa.B. 35 (January 3, 2004).

REPORT

Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 450¹

SUPPRESSION MOTIONS IN SUMMARY CASES

   The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is proposing the Court adopt new Rule 450 (Suppression of Evidence). The new rule would prohibit district justices from hearing suppression issues in summary cases and provide that summary case suppression motions shall be made in the court of common on an appeal for a trial de novo. The new rule fills the existing gap in the summary case rules concerning the procedures for handling summary case suppression issues.

Background

   Over the past several years, the Committee has undertaken an ongoing review of the summary case rules. As part of this review, some members requested the Committee consider the issue of motions in summary cases before district justices generally, and specifically the issue of summary case suppression motions. The members and a number of correspondents pointed out that because the Criminal Rules are silent concerning summary case suppression issues, and the courts have not provided much guidance,² there is a lot of confusion among members of the bench and bar when a suppression issue is raised before the district justice: some district justices make rulings on suppression issues that are raised before them, and other district justices do not consider a suppression issue when a defendant raises one.

   In view of the Committee's ongoing review of the summary case rules, the interest of the members and the correspondents in procedures for handling a summary case suppression issue raised before a district justice, the lack of uniformity in and among the judicial districts, and the controversy that has arisen concerning district justices deciding suppression motions, the Committee agreed that the summary case rules should be amended to provide the procedures for handling summary case suppression issues.

   Agreeing that the rules should provide the procedures for summary case suppression issues was ''easy;'' much more difficult was deciding whether the rules should permit a district justice to make a ruling on a suppression motion when one is raised before or during a summary trial or whether the summary suppression motions should be handled in the common pleas court. The members of the Committee, as well as the correspondents, were divided on the issue.

Discussion

   During our discussions, the Committee considered the option of providing that a district justice may hear the suppression motion and providing the attorney for the Commonwealth an immediate right to appeal to the court of common pleas if the decision on the suppression issue is adverse to the Commonwealth, and the final disposition of the summary trial would occur after the resolution of the Commonwealth appeal.³ The members in favor of this option pointed out that because district justices are finders of fact and law and regularly hear admissibility issues, they should hear suppression issues. These members also argued that if the judicial function of a district justice is to preside over a summary offense, then they should preside over the whole proceeding including suppression issues, and referenced 42 Pa.C.S. § 1515 (Jurisdiction and venue). In addition, these members recognized that if the rules specifically do not permit the district justices to hear suppression motions, this will eradicate the ''filtering mechanism'' of the district justice courts. In addition, they pointed out that when important rights are violated they should be addressed as soon as practicable, and thought this procedure would serve to quickly address illegal police conduct. Finally, these members noted that when a defendant is precluded from raising the suppression issue in the district justice court, then most will not raise it because they will ''just want to get the case over and pay the fine,'' rather than wait to have the issue addressed by the common pleas court on appeal for a trial de novo.

   The members who were not in favor of having district justices rule on suppression issues pointed out that the minor court is not a court of record. These members strongly felt there should be a record created when suppression matters are heard, and since the district justices cannot put the suppression proceedings on the record, they should not be hearing suppression issues. In addition, these members reasoned that many district justices do not have legal backgrounds, and suppression issues are among the most complicated and controversial issues facing the courts.

   After debating at length all these considerations, the Committee majority ultimately were persuaded that the reasons to require that summary case suppression motion be raised and decided in the court of common pleas outweighed the arguments for permitting the district justices to decide these motions.

   Having agreed that the summary case suppression issues should be decided in the court of common pleas, the Committee considered providing that the issue be raised at the outset of case and before the time of the summary trial because this would ensure that some sort of notice given to the attorney for the Commonwealth. The Committee agreed, however, that this solution would be unworkable because many times, the defendant is unaware of the suppression issue until the time of the summary trial, and in these cases there would be no prior notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth, and this would result in delay of the case.

   The Committee also considered including a provision for keeping the case in common pleas for disposition. However, we rejected this idea because having the summary trial in the court of common pleas would remove the authority of the district justices to decide cases over which he or she has a statutory right to preside, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 1515 (Jurisdiction and venue), and also increase the burden on the court of common pleas.

   Ultimately, the Committee settled on providing that suppression issues in summary cases can be raised only when the summary case is appealed for a trial de novo in the court of common pleas. Although the Committee as a whole recognized the inherent unfairness of requiring a defendant, when there is case dispositive issue such as a suppression issue, to pay the fee to appeal and then wait for the suppression issue to be addressed in the court of common pleas at the trial de novo, the Committee members concluded that this option best protects the defendant's rights because the issue would be addressed on the record, and best protects the Commonwealth's right to appeal an adverse ruling on suppression. Accordingly, the Committee is proposing that new Rule 450 provide no district justice shall entertain a defendant's motion to suppress in a summary case and that these motions shall be made in the court of common pleas on an appeal for a trial de novo.

______

¹The proposed new rule would be numbered Rule 450, a number reserved for motions in Chapter 4 Part E (General Procedures in Summary Cases).

²Our research revealed two cases that recognize the common pleas court has the duty to address motions to suppress when they are raised in a summary case. See Commonwealth v. Trunzo, 589 A.2d 1147 (Pa. Super. 1991) and Commonwealth v. Breslin, 732 A.2d 629 (Pa. Super. May 21, 1999). In addition, in Commonwealth v. Taylor (Lebanon County, September 25, 2002), Judge Bradford H. Charles held ''District Justices in Lebanon County do not have jurisdiction to hear or decide suppression issues. Exclusive jurisdiction to decide these issues rests with the Court of Common Pleas.''

³This procedure would be similar to the procedure in Municipal Court cases set forth in Rule 1005 (Pretrial Application for Relief).

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 04-5. Filed for public inspection January 2, 2004, 9:00 a.m.]

---

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

---