No. 793 April Term 1976, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Div., at Nos. 7507803A and 7507797A.
Robert E. Colville, District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellant.
James Kerry O'Malley and with him Robert W. Selko, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Cercone, P. J., concurs in the result.
[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 300]
This appeal arises from an order granting appellees' motions to suppress the Commonwealth's evidence.
In September 1975, Sergeant Freedman and Officer Martin of the Ross Township Police Department in Allegheny County received information that a lottery was being conducted at a certain residence in Shaler Township.*fn1 After an investigation, the officers appeared before a magistrate whose jurisdiction included Shaler Township, and applied for a search warrant. The magistrate issued the warrant, and the officers informed the Shaler Township Police Department of the pending search. Allegedly, officers from the Shaler Township Police Department accompanied Freedman
[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 301]
and Martin when the warrant was served and executed.*fn2 Evidence of gambling operations was discovered, and appellees were arrested and charged with gambling, poolselling, bookmaking and related offenses.
Appellees filed a motion to suppress the evidence, alleging, among other things, that the warrant was defective for having been issued to police officers who were acting beyond their jurisdiction. The lower court agreed, and suppressed the evidence. The Commonwealth appealed. However, in Commonwealth v. Kunkel, 254 Pa. Super. 5, 385 A.2d 496 (1978), a majority of this court believed that neither the record nor the Commonwealth's brief sufficiently established our jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, disposition of the appeal was deferred to permit the Commonwealth to file a supplemental brief to establish our jurisdiction.
A brief has now been filed, which alleges the following:
[N]ot only was the gambling paraphernalia, such as notepads, telephones, and telephone bills, which appears on the inventory receipt form attached to the search warrant . . . suppressed but also while the officers were in the premises executing the search warrant, one of the officers plugged in the telephones and received sports' bets. This evidence is likewise dependent on the validity of the warrant and search. The Commonwealth thus ...