Appeal from the Order of July 6, 1984, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Criminal Division, at No. 83 Criminal 900 and No. 893 of 1983.
Todd J. O'Malley, Scranton, for appellants.
Paul Walker, Assistant District Attorney, Scranton, for Com., appellee.
Spaeth, President Judge, and Cavanaugh and Hester, JJ. Spaeth, President Judge, concurs in the result.
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 522]
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County denying appellants' motions to dismiss charges of several violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 35 Pa.S.A. § 780-101 et seq. We must decide whether the
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 523]
order by the lower court is a violation of appellants' rights under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 of the Crimes Code and the double jeopardy clauses of our state and federal constitutions.*fn1 Finding no error, we affirm.*fn2
Appellants and many others were the target of a drug investigation by the Attorney General for the Commonwealth, the Lackawanna County District Attorney and the police department of the City of Scranton. Between December 1, 1982, and December 21, 1982, approximately 3000 conversations were intercepted and recorded from the telephone lines of several individuals believed to be involved in a drug distribution ring in the Scranton area. A majority of the conversations were drug related and provided an overview of a drug distribution scheme in which appellants played a major role. Accordingly, search warrants were executed for the residences of a number of individuals implicated by the surveillance.
While searching one of these dwellings, police observed a vehicle operated by appellant Rose Meyers and occupied by appellant Lawrence Meyers depart from the scene. Believing that the vehicle contained quantities of illicit narcotics, police pursued appellants at high speed throughout the City of Scranton. Rose Meyers' attempt to avoid apprehension by ramming two police cars failed.
Appellants were arrested on December 21, 1982, and charged with aggravated assault, resisting arrest, recklessly endangering other persons and other violations of the Vehicle Code. Appellants were not, however, charged with violations of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act despite the discovery of quantities of cash and
[ 345 Pa. Super. Page 524]
controlled substances in their possession at the time of their arrest. Appellants entered guilty pleas on the ...