Commonwealth v. Price, N., Aplt., 284 A.3d 165

Background

On October 28, 2016 police applied for a warrant seeking Verizon phone records for number 724-762-3803 after two murders; the supporting affidavit said only that “investigators learned his phone number” and that the number “is the number that is associated to Nathanial PRICE,” with no factual showing how the number was obtained or linked to the phone seized from Price.
The issuing judge signed the warrant and records were obtained; Price later moved to suppress the records, arguing the affidavit failed to state probable cause linking the number to him.
The suppression court (Judge Bianco) reversed its earlier issuance and granted the suppression motion, finding the affidavit lacked a substantial basis to conclude probable cause existed.
The Commonwealth appealed; its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement challenged only the trial court’s ruling that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause and did not mention the inevitable discovery doctrine.
The Superior Court reversed the suppression order, invoking the inevitable discovery doctrine and treating it as a “subsidiary issue” fairly included within the Commonwealth’s stated probable-cause challenge.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held inevitable discovery is not a subsidiary issue to a probable-cause challenge under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(v), concluded the doctrine was waived because it was not raised in the concise statement, vacated the Superior Court’s order, and remanded for the Superior Court to consider the probable-cause question in the first instance.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Price's Argument	Held
Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine was preserved for appeal despite not being in the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement	Inevitable discovery is effectively “probable cause plus,” is closely linked to the probable-cause challenge and therefore is a subsidiary issue fairly included in the concise statement; alternatively, decide on any right-for-any-reason basis	The concise statement identified only a probable-cause defect; inevitable discovery was not raised with required specificity and thus waived under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)	Inevitable discovery is an exception to the exclusionary rule, distinct from a four-corners probable-cause challenge; because it was not raised in the concise statement it was waived and the Superior Court erred in treating it as subsidiary
Whether the affidavit of probable cause on its face supported issuance of the warrant	The affidavit was sufficient; explanation of how the number was known was unnecessary; or remand to Superior Court to decide probable cause	Affidavit lacked foundational facts linking the identified number to Price’s phone and thus failed to establish probable cause	Supreme Court declined to decide the probable-cause question and remanded to the Superior Court to address it in the first instance
Whether the trial judge could revisit his own prior decision to issue the warrant (law-of-the-case)	Argued the prior issuance foreclosed reversal under law-of-the-case	Argued the judge could reconsider and suppress despite earlier issuance	Superior Court held a judge may revisit a prior decision of the same court; the Supreme Court left the probable-cause question for the Superior Court and focused on waiver of inevitable discovery

Key Cases Cited

Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (establishing the inevitable discovery doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule)
Commonwealth v. Henderson, 47 A.3d 797 (Pa. 2012) (discussing independent-source/related doctrines and warrant practice)
Commonwealth v. Melendez, 676 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1996) (explaining inevitable discovery burden and analysis)
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 217 A.3d 833 (Pa. 2019) (listing exceptions to exclusionary rule including inevitable discovery)
Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007) (discussing when a concise statement’s brevity still fairly notifies trial court of issues)