Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


September 14, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge


Defendant, Edwin Gosnell, was indicted by a Grand Jury on January 13, 2005, and charged with 131 counts of illegal distribution of controlled drugs in his capacity as a registered pharmacist.

On June 13, 2005, Defendant, through counsel, filed several pretrial motions, including the instant MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (Document 15).

  On July 29, 2005, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress. At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel who presented and argued the issues skillfully and effectively. Louis Colosimo, an investigator with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, testified on behalf of the government. No other witnesses testified.

  The central issues at the hearing were whether Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle and residence and whether Defendant voluntarily gave statements, both oral and written, during his interview.

  At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Defendant requested additional time within which to file a supplemental brief in support of the motion to suppress. The request was granted by the Court and the final deadline for filing a supplemental brief was August 12, 2005. However, on or about August 16, 2005, counsel for Defendant advised the Court that she would not be filing a supplemental brief.

  A transcript of the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing has not been transcribed to date; however, the Court is prepared to issue its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based upon its notes, recollection, and hearing exhibits.

  The Court will discuss primarily those basic facts which are relevant to the motion and except as otherwise indicated the following facts are basically unrebutted. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the suppression hearing and the applicable law, the Court enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
  1. On March 19, 2003, Louis Colosimo ("Colosimo"), an investigator with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") was contacted by Debbie Healy ("Healy"), loss prevention officer for Eckerd Drug Store ("Eckerd"). Healy informed Colosimo that an internal investigation indicated that Defendant, Edwin Gosnell, was filling prescriptions for Oxycodone that were fraudulent.

  2. On March 21, 2003, Colosimo met Edward Cartwright ("Cartwright"), an officer with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Bureau of Narcotic Investigation, in the parking lot of the Eckerd store where Defendant was employed as a pharmacist. The purpose of the meeting was to interview Defendant when his shift ended. Defendant did not know the officers were coming. Colosimo may have arrived at the parking lot at approximately 11:30 a.m. or noon; he thinks Cartwright arrived around 9:30 a.m. 3. Defendant's shift ended at approximately 2:00 P.M. Colosimo and Cartwright were in a parked unmarked vehicle waiting for him to come out of the store. At approximately 2:15 p.m., Defendant approached his car; the officers then got out of their unmarked car, approached Defendant, identified themselves, and told him that they wanted to speak with him. Agent Cartwright asked Defendant if he had a weapon. Defendant replied in the affirmative as he had a 9mm handgun in his front pants pocket. Agent Cartwright then secured the weapon.

  4. Cartwright then proceeded to read to Defendant his Miranda rights. Defendant verbally waived his rights and agreed to cooperate in the investigation. The Miranda warning was given orally in English and Defendant appeared to fully understand it. Colosimo testified that Defendant appeared to be oriented as to time and place and exhibited no signs of confusion or impairment.

  5. Colosimo then asked Defendant for his consent to search his vehicle, to which Defendant agreed. Defendant signed a Consent to Search form which authorized Cartwright to search his person, his car (a 1999 Chevrolet Monte Carlo) and his residence located at 5978 Dublin Road, Bethel Park, PA. See Consent to Search, Exhibit 1. Colosimo testified that Defendant understood that the Consent to Search authorized Cartwright to conduct a complete search of his person, vehicle, and residence. Prior to the execution of the Consent, the only question asked of Defendant was whether he had a weapon.

  6. Defendant was not handcuffed at the time he signed the Consent to Search and the search had not occurred prior to his signing the Consent to Search. Colosimo did not have a gun on his person; Cartwright had a gun, but he never took it out. Colosimo could not recall whether Cartwright's weapon was visible or whether Cartwright was wearing a suit jacket. The Consent to Search was signed by Cartwright and Colosimo as witnesses. No other officers were in the area. Healy was in the vicinity, but she did not participate in the search.

  7. The search of the car revealed the following: 2 written prescriptions for a patient named John Linden; a check made out to cash in the amount of $1000.00, signed by Daniel Dawes, with a notation on it which stated for "work on house;" and a few other prescriptions. An overcoat and smock were also in the car. In the overcoat, two prescription bottles were found; in the smock, a few tablets of controlled substances were found.

  8. Healy was present during the search of the vehicle although she did not participate in the search. She stood with Defendant while the search was conducted.

  9. Immediately after the completion of the vehicle search, Colosimo asked if Defendant would answer some questions regarding the investigation. Defendant agreed, and the Defendant, accompanied by the officers, walked back into Eckerd ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.