227 A.3d 358
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Montgomery County and DEA investigation (2015–2016) into a Mexican cartel uncovered a scheme in which Pacheco allegedly transported kilograms of heroin from Georgia to New York on multiple trips.
- Prosecutors obtained several orders under Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Subchapter E) authorizing “pings” that produced real-time cell-site location information (CSLI) for Pacheco’s phone.
- Real-time CSLI allegedly showed repeated trips to Atlanta and the Bronx; police stopped Pacheco on return from one trip and found 3 kg of heroin in a car battery; total attributed trafficking was 27 kg.
- Pacheco was tried, conceded transporting heroin on multiple trips but asserted duress (cartel threats) as his defense; he was convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to an aggregate 40–80 years plus probation.
- On appeal Pacheco challenged preservation/waiver, suppression of real-time CSLI under the Fourth Amendment and Carpenter, exclusion/limitation of cartel expert testimony, and the discretionary aspects of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Pacheco's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of CSLI suppression claim | Preserved: argued orders violated Article I §8 and Fourth Amendment and that warrants were required | Trial court said concise statement was vague; Commonwealth noted Carpenter wasn’t raised below | Preserved: appellate court finds suppression claim was adequately raised in suppression filings and briefs |
| Whether real-time CSLI seizure was an unconstitutional warrantless search under Carpenter | Real-time CSLI is at least as invasive as historical CSLI; Carpenter’s warrant rule should apply and D-orders/orders under SCA/Wiretap Act are insufficient | Orders were issued under PA Wiretap Act with probable-cause affidavits; such orders meet Fourth Amendment warrant requirements (Dalia) | Carpenter’s reasoning extends to real-time CSLI (it is a search), but the PA Wiretap Act orders here satisfied Fourth Amendment warrant requirements; suppression denied |
| Exclusion/limitation of cartel expert testimony (duress defense) | Expert should have been allowed to answer hypotheticals tying cartel coercion to Pacheco to support duress | Trial court limited testimony to general cartel practices because expert had not interviewed Pacheco; Commonwealth objected | Waived for failure to object contemporaneously; appellant’s late objection forfeited claim (alternatively, trial court acted within discretion) |
| Discretionary sentencing claim (aggregate 40–80 years) | Sentence manifestly excessive, failed to consider rehabilitation, relied on improper factors and on potential harm rather than actual harm | Sentencing within guidelines, court considered PSI, individual factors, and the multiple distinct trips justified consecutive standard-range sentences | No abuse of discretion; sentences were guideline-range and not unduly harsh; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (government access to historical CSLI is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (court orders authorizing electronic surveillance may satisfy Fourth Amendment warrant requirements when grounded in probable cause)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and prolonged use of GPS device on vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (third-party doctrine: no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (pen register numbers dialed case applying the third-party doctrine)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality-of-the-circumstances standard)