PA: Arrest on a warrant requires the warrant be proved to exist

When an arrest warrant is served, it disappears from the system. Its existence can still be proved by someone with knowledge, but here it wasn’t. Therefore, the fruits of the arrest are suppressed for lack of proof of a valid arrest. Commonwealth v. Easter, 2025 PA Super 1, 2025 PA Super LEXIS 1 (Jan. 2, 2025) (2-1) [and look for this to go up]:

We are constrained to reverse the suppression court, because its legal conclusions are not supported by the record. The Commonwealth failed to prove the existence of a lawful arrest warrant, and the evidence seized thereafter was fruit of the poisonous tree.

At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth presented an officer who had no first-hand knowledge of the warrant that was the subject of the arrest at issue. The Commonwealth also presented a deputy sheriff who, in summary, testified that arrest warrants in the MISSILE system essentially disappear once an arrest warrant is served, and the county is notified. N.T. Suppression Hearing 11/2/22 at 21-27. Decidedly more important to this analysis is what the Commonwealth failed to present — 1) documentary evidence or testimony regarding the issuance of the underlying citation, 2) the physical arrest warrant, 3) testimony of a witness with first-hand knowledge of the existence of the arrest warrant, 4) records from a reliable database demonstrating the existence and issuance of the arrest warrant (i.e. N.C.I.C., JNET, AOPC, etc. …), and 5) evidence of the return of service of the arrest warrant. The record fails to demonstrate which rules regarding the issuance of citations were followed and how the unproved arrest warrant came into existence. We are thus squarely presented with an issue this Court has not directly decided: has the Commonwealth met its burden to prove the existence of a valid arrest warrant at a suppression hearing where it fails to produce the warrant, fails to produce any testimony from anyone with first-hand knowledge of the warrant, and fails to produce any documentary evidence which would confirm the existence of the warrant? In light of the facts of the record before us, we must conclude the answer is “no.”

A review of Pennsylvania caselaw demonstrates that at a suppression hearing the Commonwealth must present documentary evidence or the testimony of a witness with first-hand knowledge of the requisite supporting police action depriving a person of his liberty or seeking the admission of evidence against him. …

Update: techdirt: Court To Cops: If You Can’t Prove A Warrant Existed, You Can’t Expect Us To Consider It ‘Valid’ by Tim Cushing

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.