IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,) CRIMINAL DIVISION
)
v. ) CC: CP-CR-0007596
)
ALYSSA GARRETT-SAUNDERS, ) THE HONORABLE JUDGE
) JILL E. RANGOS
Defendant. )
OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Alyssa Garrett-Saunders,
by and through her attorney, Lindsley W. Love, Esquire, and
respectfully states the following:
1. This case stems from Defendant’s arrest on Sepember 30,
2020 at a rented house located at 120 Quincy Avenue, Mt., Pittsburgh,
PA which she shared with her boyfriend, Marquese Underwood,
brother Devin Saunders and Saunder’s girlfriend.
2. Defendant’s arrest following execution of a search warrant
issued the day before resulted in five (5) charges all related to alleged
drug trafficking except Endangering Welfare of Children subsequently
Withdrawn along with Possession of Paraphernalia following the
Preliminary Hearing in this case.
3. The application for search warrant and authorization in
Allegheny County dated 09/29/20 brief description to identify the items
to be searched, concludes with “Information contained in cell phones,
laptops, IPads, electronic storage devices recovered at the time of
execution of search warrant of individuals listed.”
4. Three (3) cell phones were recovered by law enforcement
during execution of the search warrant , including the cell phone
belonging to Defendant, Alyssa Garrett-Saunders.
5. The search warrant in this case is short, vague and lacking in a
particular description of what specific information was being sought,
where it was stored in what applications and areas of the Defendant’s
cell phone, the time period or other limitations, protocols or methods
for recovery of data and information.
6. The Affidavit Of Probable Cause attached to search warrant
Provides no details, basis or reason to search for any specific or general
criminal information on the Defendant’s cell phone, it’s intended
Purpose for law enforcement, or how to retrieve the information while
protecting the Defendant’s erstwhile rights of privacy.
7. “General warrants do not satisfy the requirement of the
Fourth Amendment that the warrant contain a description of the place
to searched and the persons or things to be seized.” United States v.
Jones, 534 F.3d 1285 at 1289. (citations omitted).
8. “In practice, courts have demanded that the executing officers
be able to identify the things to be searched with reasonable
certainty (emphasis added), and that the warrant description must be
as particular as circumstances permit.”
9. The search warrant and affidavit of probable cause attached
thereto in this case contain no method or protocol to limit the search
of the Defendant’s cell phone and it’s many applications, websites,
storage places, records, contacts, texts, emails, messages, etc. (see
United States v. Clough, 246 F.Supp. 2d 84, 87 2003) where the Court
held that the search warrant was invalid for failing to meet the
particularity requirement, with “no restrictions on the search” and “no
references to crimes or illegality.” (id.)
10. In conclusion, the search warrant in this case did not limit the
scope of the search and seizure to data or information related to any
alleged crime alleged to have been committed by the Defendant. As
such, the warrant is overly broad in scope and general in lack of reasons
and details, and lacking in particularity in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 8 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court suppress the information and data retrieved including all records,
data, pictures, texts, emails, social media posts and similar contents
recovered or retrieved by police from the Defendant’s cell phone as
“fruit of the posionous tree” where the search warrant and results of
the search are in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and Article 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Lindsley W. Love, Esquire
