*1 Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee
Cory DOBBINS, Appellant.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of April
Submitted July
Filed Fleury, Troy,
Robert appellant. G. Downs, Stephen G. Assistant District Towanda, Commonwealth, Attorney, appellee. SOLE, P.J.,
Before: DEL JOYCE and KLEIN, JJ. KLEIN,
OPINION BY J.: ¶ 1 Cory vari- Dobbins convicted of ous drug activity centered offenses on the of a methamphetamine lab. complains He investigation, procurement of a search warrant and were illegal activities were carried out officers department of Bradford Af- County, by police rather than officers. par- ter review of the submissions ties, record, relevant law and the official we affirm.
691 ¶2 methamphetamine evidence County Deputies Bradford Sheriffs substantial was manufacturing methamphetamine Hart Christopher Burgert1 and David and A for County to a confiscated. warrant went residence Bradford found and Harris, and Dobbins attempting April to find whose arrest was obtained Dobbins’ investigation inup prior subsequently name had come a arrested. methamphetamine ring. The regarding Basically, 5 claims Dobbins not have a warrant but were deputies did Miller, Kopko v. the dictates under looking to talk to Harris. Harris was (Pa.Cmwith.2004), only police residence, a At that at the mobile home. authority investigate officers have the ether, time, deputies a com- both smelled However, we and make arrests. felonies of meth- ponent used the manufacture case law and statutes mandate believe that amphetamine. The ether smell came from sheriffs, finding properly when barn, nearby both mobile home and a Municipal Police Edu trained under the property. on the which was located (Act 120), Training Law are cation and next As the parked cai’ was barn. officers and as such have barn, they noticed a deputies walked to enforce broad They white male at the rear of the barn. law, ability to arrest for felo including the as and at- deputies announced themselves ny broad common drug violations. The tempted speak to the male. The male continue as powers of law enforcement person Deputy resembled known to Hart unequivocally long as those Cory male fled Dobbins. The the scene abrogated by statute. nearby into woods. Dobbins’ truck was parked home. behind mobile begin by noting that while 6 We
¶3 au deputies deputies have no Kopko noticed various items ruled sheriff’s surveillance, thority wiretap around the barn and mobile home that to conduct by were consistent with the manufacture power being limited sher These methamphetamine. authority items included from com is derived broad iffs’ (often anhy- tanks propane used to store re and continues unless ammonia), plastic drous tubing, clear rub- The derivation stricted statute. salt, gloves, jug and milk containing ber was enunciated sludgy Deputy a white substance. Evans Pa. Commonwealth arrived at the scene later and detected the which stated: 641 A.2d smell of ammonia on the other side of the unnecessary cite Though may warrant, obtaining Before barn. authority, Blackstone con- additional Trooper deputies spoke with State firms the common law McKee who informed them he had confis- without warrant to make arrests methamphetamine methamphet- cated for felonies and breaches of precursors on amine from that residence In- presence. his peace committed prior occasion. deed, widely known such are so universally recognized that it is and so A search warrant was obtained hardly necessary cite deputies based on observations of how point, To make the provided by Trooper proposition. and information question that executed and few children would McKee. warrant was DEA methamphetamine from both the Deputy Burgert completed the wards Counterdrug "Multijurisdictional and received Police Officer’s course geared [sic]. to- Task Force” additional Nottingham infamous Sheriff had at ny County. Initially, just we note that least the authority to arrest Robin Allegheny County Sheriff Hood. is defined as a officer under section 103, it any does not mean (citations omitted). other sher- Id. Our Su- *3 iniff the can Commonwealth be longer preme Court continued with this rationale: classified law enforcement officer. short, necessary to find a Then, section 103 pow- does not list what motor provision granting vehicle code (and ers Alleghe- officer sheriff of the sheriffs power to enforce the code— ny County) possesses that other law en- sheriffs have had to enforce that, forcement officers do not. For one Carta; the laws since Magna before the specific must look to statutes rather than rather, it necessary would be to find an specif- definitions. If unequivocal provision in the code abro- ically capabilities limits enforcement gating the in order to officers,” “police then section defi- conclude the sheriff not en- nition becomes relevant. force the code.
Id. 10 To that end we look the adminis- provision trative of the Sub- Controlled ¶ 7 Although the factual scenario Leet Act, 35 § stances seq. P.S. 780-101 et here, is different presented from that Leet Section primary powers 780-134 nonetheless teaches us a sheriffs enforcement of the Act the Department power to enforce the law is abrogated only (d) of Health. subsection states: by specific Also, out, statute. points dieta, Nothing that the broad common contained herein law duties shall be of a sheriff include deemed to limit of the Control, Drug felonies. Bureau of Pennsylva- Police, nia State Department ¶ 8 Leet carries an additional require- any Justice or other law enforcement ment exercise the com- agency in dealing with law enforcement of a sheriff. protect To matters respect persons with en- public safety, adequate training must be gaged importation, in the unlawful man- provided to who enforce the law with ufacture, distribution, produc- sale and firearms. referred into Leet substances, tion of controlled other earlier, is that found in Act As 120. noted drug or or devices cosmetics nor the minimum, at a Deputy Burgert re- has authority of the council performing training. ceived this any imposed upon duties it by the ¶ 9 Shortly published, after Leet was “Pennsylvania Drug and Alcohol Abuse legislature added definition of “police Act.” officer” to 18 Pa.C.S. offi- 780-134(d). 35 P.S. cer is one has successfully completed requirements spe- under Act 120 and Notably, this section mentions not cifically only only police, includes a sheriff of a the state also “any but other County).2 of the second class (Allegheny agency dealing enforcement with Thus, it might argued that legisla- Thus, be enforcement matters.” the Con specifically abrogated has ture the com- contemplates trolled Substances Act en law powers Alleghe- mon of a not of forcement the Board Health why legislature “police It is unclear decided sidered *4 definitional limitation 18 Pa.C.S. officer, in a law addition that not to apply 103 does this section. in powers to the broad common law stated ¶ 11 A law enforcement officer is not Leet, by specifically is limited 18, in Title but at Pa. is defined has Supreme provided if Court 42 Pa.C.S.A. law enforce- R.Crim.P in its exclusive function as rule otherwise any person ment officer is who is law maker. given power to enforce the law when in rules applicable acting scope employment. within the to search war pertaining matter are those possess Leet makes clear that sheriffs rants. See 200-211. These Pa.R.Crim.P. Furthermore, power. Supreme that our specifically rules mention enforce upheld right Court who are authorized ment officers” those enforce the law and after the make arrests warrants. serve and execute search amendment of 103. In Com- 18 Pa.C.S. Thus, no with a sheriff problem there is Lockridge, monwealth 570 Pa. Interestingly, those performing duties. years seven after the Criminal Rules do not Procedure legislature added the of “police definition may apply state who a search warrant. Supreme officer” to the 202, addressing options local for issu Rule power reiterated the sheriffs common law search warrants where local dis to arrest as well as the issue warrant, applies for does attorney trict personally citation for an offense not wit- returning disapproved applica mention Lockridge, nessed. the offense was prepared the police tion to the officer who suspend- traffic driving citation for with a might imply, application.3 written This Lockridge argued ed license. that Leet option applicable, least when the local Motor Vehicle Code limited a supplies the informa police that a officer only situ- probable tion affidavit of cause. for the actually ations where the sheriff witnessed that Lockridge Leet and indicate Court, Supreme Our the offense. howev- abrogating unequivocal an statement er, determined the Rules of Criminal Pro- needed, of sheriff trumped cedure the Motor Vehicle Code Also, police officers Pennsylvania implication. Constitution 202. Supreme mentioned Rule powers Court exclusive applying accept interpretation ney for a warrant of this General’s office If strict 202(D) language, option Although then under the one does local Rule under Rule may apply for a other than officer not be entitled to state that a defendant shall If this is the case then we warrant. solely upon of this a violation relief based ready accept result of must be the absurd rule. impossibility agent of a DEA or the Attor- 14 Rule which describes tation of law to right allow a constable the for application contents for a search war arrest, felony drug deny make rant states: right will same the sheriff. We application
Each for a search warrant interpret the law to achieve that peculiar affidavit(s) shall be supported written result. signed and sworn or affirmed before 16 Our Court has determined affidavit(s) authority, an' issuing which a sheriff is involved law enforce- shall: the office are (1) department, state the name and broadly derived from the common law. agency or address the affiant See supra. Because those “department” The language “agency” or based, are common law there must be a not specifically “police mention either specific abrogation of those to de- officer” or “law enforcement officer.” It feat capabili- credibly argued cannot be the lan- ties of the sheriff. Id. The Controlled guage used rule encompass does not specifically Substances does not abro- officers, yet they are not gate capabil- the common law enforcement
mentioned. The use of department and
*5
ities of
regarding drug
the sheriffs office
agency,4
specific listing
rather than
of all
Therefore,
spe-
enforcement.
there are no
possible
agencies,
would
seem, therefore,
cific statutory prohibitions
be a
legislative
short-
the sheriffs
encompassing
spectrum
hand
the
of law
Additionally,
actions in this matter.
the
enforcement agencies. As it has already
contemplate
Rules of
Procedure
Criminal
been
that
demonstrated
a sheriff and a
the
in
search
participation
the
sheriffs office
pantheon
are included in the
process.
specific
warrant
There is no
ab-
enforcement, may
fairly
of
it
assert-
rogation
in
of the
of the sheriff
ed that a sheriff
supply
requisite
for a
applying
search warrant and the
information to
for a
apply
search warrant.
language
broad
used
¶
Finally,
note
with interest
formulating
Court in
rules for
in
decision
Taylor,
Commonwealth v.
450 warrants indicates an intent to include the
(1996),
Pa.Super.
Leet. ty’s on justify finding reliance Leet ¶5 Thus, if we were to use sheriffs to exer- determine a to conduct im- cise exercised in this case investigation like one in this appeal, and, minimum, at a incomplete, I what, would need to examine any, if train- authority, on would find based the Gen- is received sheriffs in the relevant Assembly’s post-Leei statutory eral pro- field, namely criminal investigations. We nouncement. municipal know police officers are trained area. See Pa.Code 203.51(b)(ll). analysis A proper would require findings on the training require- po-
ments for both sheriffs and municipal *7 Majority
lice officers. The relies on the deputy
fact sheriffs who initiated investigation in this case have had municipal police training they had Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH of jobs officers; however, other Appellant would find these experience individuals’ determining irrelevant sheriffs’ CRIST, Appellee. L. Konrad in general.
¶ Further, do find that the hold- Superior of Pennsylvania. ing Leet leads to the conclusion reached Argued May 25, 2005. by Majority. holding Leet’s is limited July Filed present to circumstances this case. Flaherty, writing Majority,
Justice for the
found the common law
of a sheriff
Taylor,
peace”
Pa.Super.
pres-
8. Commonwealth v.
"breach
committed
by Majori-