PA: Trial court abused discretion in reopening twice reversed suppression order for third hearing; no change in law

“Therefore, because the Jones decision did not present an intervening change in the law, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in re-opening Sodomsky’s suppression hearing for the second time after its two prior suppression orders were reversed by this Court on appeal. Indeed, Sodomsky is not entitled to “three bites” of the proverbial suppression apple.” Jones had no application to defendant’s computer search issue. Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 2016 PA Super 84, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 223 (April 12, 2016).

The independent source doctrine supported the validity of the search warrant in this case. Police were on the premises and waiting for a warrant to arrive, and they did make observations and took photographs. None., however, was involved in the obtaining of the warrant. State v. Bardales, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 156 (April 19, 2016).*