Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 137 A.3d 620

In 2004 Sodomsky left his desktop PC at Circuit City for installation of a DVD burner; store technicians installed accompanying software and ran a file search to test the drive, which produced video thumbnails and titles, some suggesting child pornography.
A Circuit City technician viewed a brief clip he believed to show child pornography, stopped it, notified police, and police seized the computer and later obtained a warrant to search it, discovering child pornography.
Sodomsky was charged with child-pornography offenses and moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful warrantless search and seizure.
The trial court initially granted suppression (2005); this Court reversed (2007), holding Sodomsky abandoned any privacy interest in the files by leaving the computer for service. Pennsylvania Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court denied review.
On remand Sodomsky presented new expert evidence; the trial court again suppressed (2011); this Court again reversed (2012) and higher courts denied review. After Jones (2012), Sodomsky sought a second re-opening of suppression proceedings (2013), arguing Jones constituted intervening law. The trial court reopened and granted suppression a third time.
The Commonwealth appealed en banc; the Superior Court majority held the trial court abused its discretion in re-opening the suppression hearing because Jones did not create new law warranting another reopening, and reversed the suppression order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court could re-open suppression hearing after two prior appellate reversals	Sodomsky: Jones is an intervening change in law justifying re-opening under Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(B) or the interests of justice	Commonwealth: No — Jones merely reaffirmed long-standing property-based Fourth Amendment principles and did not create new law; Rule 581 limits reopening	Court: Re-opening was an abuse of discretion; Jones did not create intervening new law and interests of justice did not require reopening
Whether Jones created a new Fourth Amendment property-based test that was unavailable earlier	Sodomsky: Jones revived a property-intrusion framework that changes analysis and would alter suppression outcome	Commonwealth: Jones reaffirmed existing law (protection for "effects") and did not supplant Katz-era expectation-of-privacy inquiry	Court: Jones did not create new law; it reaffirmed that physical intrusions on "effects" constitute searches but did not change available Fourth Amendment arguments
Whether defendant is entitled to additional suppression proceedings after two reversals ("three bites")	Sodomsky: Subsequent Supreme Court authority justifies reconsideration and suppression in interests of justice	Commonwealth: Allowing repeated reopenings would permit endless relitigation contrary to finality and Rule 581	Court: Defendant not entitled to repeated reopenings; trial court erred in permitting third suppression proceeding

Commonwealth v. Sodomsky, 939 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 2007) (earlier panel held defendant abandoned privacy interest by leaving computer for service)
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (reaffirmed that government’s physical intrusion on property can constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (established reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test)
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures of property regardless of privacy or liberty implications)
Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969) (discussed scope of Fourth Amendment protections)
Commonwealth v. Carter, 105 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standards of review for suppression appeals)