Com. v. Zydney, A., Com. v. Zydney, A. No. 927 MDA 2016

Investigators downloaded child-pornography files from an IP address and obtained subscriber info from getwireless.net; a search warrant for the residence at 801 W. Aaron Drive was executed on July 31, 2015 and a laptop belonging to Adam Zydney was seized and forensically analyzed.
On August 4, 2015 Zydney and his attorney voluntarily met with Detective Martin at the police station; Martin told Zydney the interview was non-custodial, he was free to leave, and Zydney understood his rights.
During the interview Martin told Zydney that if he cooperated and the forensic results matched his statements, Martin would charge him with only one count, but Martin warned he could not ultimately control final disposition; Zydney made inculpatory statements admitting child pornography would be found.
The Commonwealth initially charged one count (Aug. 31, 2015) and later filed 1,061 additional possession counts (Nov. 11, 2015); the cases were consolidated and Zydney moved to suppress the interview statements and to dismiss additional counts.
The trial court denied the motion to quash the search warrant (finding the affidavit sufficient despite a typographical error and no staleness), but granted the motion to suppress the August 4 statements as involuntary because they were induced by a promise from an officer in apparent authority; the Commonwealth appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Zydney's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of search warrant / probable cause; typographical error & staleness	Warrant affidavits provided adequate facts linking IP/subscriber to the residence; the Armstrong Cable typo was immaterial and the information was not stale	Affidavit lacked a clear, timely link between the IP and Zydney's apartment; subscriber association was stale	Court denied motion to quash: affidavit supplied probable cause; typo immaterial; facts not stale
Voluntariness of statements induced by promise to file only one charge	Interview was non-custodial, counsel present, and Zydney was free to leave; no binding immunity was promised	Detective’s promise to charge only one count induced Zydney’s statements; officer was a person in apparent authority, so the promise rendered the confession involuntary	Court granted suppression: statements involuntary because induced by promise from person in apparent authority; evidence obtained as direct result suppressed

Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 31 A.3d 299 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for appeals from suppression orders)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (burden and standards regarding custodial interrogation and right to remain silent)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in search-warrant affidavits)
Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985) (adoption of Gates totality approach in Pennsylvania)
Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995) (police cannot bind DA charging decisions; remedy for confession induced by unauthorized promise is suppression)
Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Article I, Section 8 warrant probable-cause standards)
Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055 (Pa. 1977) (involuntary confession induced by promise of immunity from person in apparent authority must be suppressed)
Commonwealth v. Elsfager, 502 A.2d 1354 (Pa. Super. 1986) (same principle regarding apparent authority and involuntariness)