No. 585 January Term, 1977 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at No. 752 October Term, 1976, affirming the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal, of Lancaster County, at Nos. 1442 and 1443 of 1975.
Michael J. Minney, Samuel M. Mecum, Lancaster, for appellant.
Joseph C. Madenspacher, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Manderino, Larsen and Flaherty, JJ. Manderino, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.
Appellant, Clinton Geary, was convicted by a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County of two counts
of forgery. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and three to twelve months' imprisonment. The Superior Court affirmed in a per curiam order. Commonwealth v. Geary, 246 Pa. Super. 633, 372 A.2d 835 (1977). We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal, and this appeal followed.
The facts are as follows: On May 2, 1975, appellant was stopped in the City of Philadelphia for a minor traffic violation and upon producing what appeared to be an invalid driver's license, he was taken to the police station. There, a computer check was run on appellant, which showed two outstanding warrants for his arrest on charges of forgery. The warrants concerned a check-cashing incident which occurred in Lancaster County in September of 1974 and were based upon information -- both oral and recorded -- supplied by Detective David Parsons of the Lancaster police. Appellant was immediately placed under arrest and while awaiting transportation to Lancaster, he was photographed. Later, after his return to Lancaster, appellant was fingerprinted and a handwriting sample was taken.
Following denial of appellant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence, he was convicted of two counts of forgery. Post-verdict motions were denied and sentence was imposed. Following a per curiam affirmance by the Superior Court, this appeal followed.
In our order granting appellant's petition for allowance of appeal, we stated:
"AND NOW, August 2, 1977, the within petition is granted but limited, however, to the second question presented for review, viz., the validity of the arrest warrant and subsequent arrest and the fruits thereof in light of there being no contemporaneous ...