Com. v. Price, N., 244 A.3d 1250

In Oct. 2016, Price was arrested in connection with a double homicide; police seized a Samsung Galaxy phone on his person and logged it into evidence.
Trooper McCombie’s affidavit sought a warrant for phone records for number 724-762-3803, stating Price used that number to communicate with a co-suspect before the homicides and that a Verizon warrant confirmed communications before and after the murders.
A search warrant for the phone was issued on May 19, 2017; Price later moved to suppress various evidence, including the phone records.
The suppression court (the same judge who issued the warrant) granted suppression of the phone records, finding the affidavit failed to establish a connection between the seized phone and the phone number or that the records probably contained evidence of a crime.
The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar reconsideration, that probable cause existed (or could have been established), and alternatively that inevitable discovery applied because the police had omitted but possessed information that would have supported a subsequent warrant.
The Superior Court reversed the suppression order, concluding there was no police misconduct in the omission and that the Commonwealth carried its burden to show the records would have been inevitably discovered via lawful means.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether affidavit established probable cause for provider records	Affidavit and known communications with co-suspect showed probable cause to obtain records	Affidavit failed to link seized phone to the phone number or show records would contain evidence	Suppression court found no probable cause; Superior Court reversed on other grounds (inevitable discovery)
Whether law-of-the-case barred reconsideration of the warrant by same judge	Commonwealth: prior finding of probable cause precludes reopening	Price: judge may revisit issues; law-of-the-case doesn’t bind same judge	Rejected Commonwealth’s claim; a judge may revisit their own pretrial rulings
Whether inevitable discovery doctrine renders records admissible despite affidavit defects	Records would have been obtained by a later proper warrant; omission was not misconduct	Omitted facts were material; suppression required	Superior Court held no police misconduct and that records would have inevitably been discovered, so admissible

Commonwealth v. Vetter, 149 A.3d 71 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for suppression appeals)
Commonwealth v. Gacobano, 65 A.3d 416 (Pa. Super. 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine scope)
Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262 (Pa. Super. 2005) (law-of-the-case principles)
Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (judge may revisit own rulings; limits of law-of-the-case)
Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475 (Pa. 2018) (inevitable discovery doctrine overview)
Commonwealth v. Perel, 107 A.3d 185 (Pa. Super. 2014) (independence requirement when police misconduct implicated)
Commonwealth v. Henderson, 47 A.3d 797 (Pa. 2012) (omitted affidavit information and subsequent warrant analysis)