record of the suppression hearing in Pennsylvania

2017Nevertheless, “the record of the suppression hearing is intended to be the complete record for suppression issues . . . .” L.J., 79 A.3d at 1084 .

2017See In the Interest of L.J., 79 A.3d at 1085 (limiting appellate scope of review of a suppression ruling to the record of the suppression hearing).

2023If the defendant files a petition for writ of certiorari and challenges the denial of a motion to suppress, “the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County sits as an appellate court and reviews the record of the suppression hearing in the Municipal Court.” Neal, 151 A.3d at 1070 (citations omitted).

2019If the defendant files a petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, the court of common pleas sits as an appellate court—it reviews the record of the suppression hearing before the municipal court.6 Commonwealth v. Neal, 151 A.3d 1068, 1070 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citations omitted).

2026“Where, as here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted.” Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (Pa. 2017) (citation omitted).

2025See Yandamuri, 159 A.3d at 516 .

2025Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1118-19 (Pa.Super. 2011); Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204 , 207 n.2 ____________________________________________ 2 Appellant’s notice of appeal incorrectly stated that the appeal was from the judgment of sentence, but this Court has corrected the docket to reflect that the appeal lies from the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. -3- J-A01018-25 (Pa.Super. 2005).

2020Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 , 1118- 1119 (Pa.Super. 2011); Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204 , 207 n.2 (Pa.Super. 2005).

2022See also Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196, 1200, 1202 (Pa. Super. 2002) (en banc) (although trial court did not state findings of fact on the record at suppression hearing, this Court could review trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion’s discussion of suppression issue, and thus we reached merits of the defendant’s suppression challenge, based “[u]pon consideration of [the] circumstances as documented in the record of the suppression hearing”).

2022We then reached the merits of the defendant’s suppression challenge, based “[u]pon consideration of [the] circumstances as documented in the record of the suppression hearing[.]” Id. at 1202 .

2026Our review of “a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010).

2026“We are bound by the facts found by the [suppression] court so long as they are supported by the record, but we review its legal conclusions de novo.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 316 A.3d 1026, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2024).

2025If the Commonwealth prevailed at the suppression hearing, we “consider only the Commonwealth’s evidence and so much of the defense’s evidence as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole.” Dunkins, 263 A.3d at 252, quoting In Interest of A.A., 195 A.3d 896, 901 (Pa. 2018).

2025Commonwealth v. Ward, 318 A.3d 410, 413 (Pa.Super. 2024).

2024See Commonwealth v. Carter, 779 A.2d 591, 593-594 (Pa. Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh, 706 A.2d 826, 832 (Pa. Super. 1997). - 21 - J-A28034-23 Appellant’s Brief, 37-38.

2024See Commonwealth v. Carter, 779 A.2d 591, 593-594 (Pa. Super. 2001); Commonwealth v. Rickabaugh, 706 A.2d 826, 832 (Pa. Super. 1997). - 21 - J-A28034-23 Appellant’s Brief, 37-38.

2023See Eadie v. Bohatch, 601 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1992) (holding defendant’s failure to comply with trial court’s order to submit blood testing gave trial court authority to resolve paternity issue). -7- J-S24024-23 Additionally, we emphasize that the use of buccal swabs is a minimal intrusion into a defendant’s privacy interest following his lawful arrest and does not require a demonstration of consent.

2023See Eadie v. Bohatch, 601 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1992) (holding defendant’s failure to comply with trial court’s order to submit blood testing gave trial court authority to resolve paternity issue). -7- J-S24024-23 Additionally, we emphasize that the use of buccal swabs is a minimal intrusion into a defendant’s privacy interest following his lawful arrest and does not require a demonstration of consent.

2023See Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 49 (Pa. 2011). - 21 - J-S22041-22 (or what evidence was admitted at trial); instead, he offers only a citation to the record of the suppression hearing.

2008See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 22 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007).

2008See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 22 , 915 A.2d 1122, 1134 (2007).

2008See Hashem, 526 Pa. at 205 , 584 A.2d at 1381 (“We must likewise specifically reject the Superior Court’s holding that before relief can be granted in this type of claim the Defendant must bear the burden of showing how the failure to comply with the Act prejudiced him.”). 2 Nevertheless, I believe the Commonwealth appropriately relies on the principles governing review of suppression-court rulings, which center the appellate court review on the record of the suppression hearing.

2008See Hashem, 526 Pa. at 205 , 584 A.2d at 1381 (“We must likewise specifically reject the Superior Court’s holding that before relief can be granted in this type of claim the Defendant must bear the burden of showing how the failure to comply with the Act prejudiced him.”). 2 Nevertheless, I believe the Commonwealth appropriately relies on the principles governing review of suppression-court rulings, which center the appellate court review on the record of the suppression hearing.

2001Id. at 340. [13] Our review of Appellant's suppression motion and the record of the suppression hearing reveals that Appellant's argument for suppression was premised solely on the assertion that Detective McDermott's attempt to evoke an incriminating response from him in the absence of Miranda warnings was, in and of itself, sufficient to render the statement inadmissible.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1982Commonwealth v. Watson, 487 Pa. 169, 171 , 409 A.2d 19, 20 (1979); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 280-81 , 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976); Commonwealth v. Stamm, 286 Pa.Super. 409 , 429 A.2d 4 *78 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205 , 421 A.2d 684 (1980). 7 Viewed in that light, the record of the suppression hearing reveals that on May 27,1977, Detective Martin Devlin of the Philadelphia Police Department was assigned to investigate the gang rape of a 12 year old girl, allegedly having occurred during the afternoon hours of the same day.

1979See Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 562, 566 , 375 A.2d 1260, 1262 (1977).

1979See Commonwealth v. Brown, 473 Pa. 562, 566 , 375 A.2d 1260, 1262 (1977).

1979See Commonwealth v. Coley, 466 Pa. 53 , 351 A.2d *483 617 (1976); Commonwealth v. Blagman, 458 Pa. 431 , 326 A.2d 296 (1974).

1978In deciding whether the identification was reliable, we do not limit our review to the record of the suppression hearing, for “[[a]n] appellate court should be able to consider all the testimony on record to determine whether certain evidence was constitutionally admissible at trial, not just the testimony at the suppression hearing.” Commonwealth v. Kaschik, 235 Pa.Super. 388 , 396 n. 7, 344 A.2d 519, 520 (1975).

1978In deciding whether the identification was reliable, we do not limit our review to the record of the suppression hearing, for “[[a]n] appellate court should be able to consider all the testimony on record to determine whether certain evidence was constitutionally admissible at trial, not just the testimony at the suppression hearing.” Commonwealth v. Kaschik, 235 Pa.Super. 388 , 396 n. 7, 344 A.2d 519, 520 (1975).