[234 PA. CODE CH. 4] Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 450 [35 Pa.B. 2863] The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt new Rule 450 (Suppression of Evidence). This new rule would permit requests for the suppression of evidence to be raised in summary cases before magisterial district judges. This supplemental proposal resulted from the Committee's further review of the proposed rule changes in response to the extensive correspondence received after publication of our original explanatory Report that would have required that suppression motions in summary cases only may be handled in the court of common pleas when a summary case is appealed for a trial de novo. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The following explanatory Supplemental Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this supplemental proposal. Please note that the Committee's Supplemental Report should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the explanatory Reports.
The text of the proposed new rule precedes the Supplemental Report.
We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal in writing to the Committee through counsel,
Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road, Suite 100
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
fax: (717) 795-2106
e-mail: criminal.rules@pacourts.usno later than Friday, June 17, 2005.
By the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee
NICHOLAS T. NASTASI,
ChairAnnex A TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 4. PROCEDURES IN SUMMARY CASES PART E. General Procedures in Summary Cases Rule 450. Suppression of Evidence.
(A) A defendant at a summary trial may orally or in writing request the magisterial district judge to suppress evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.
(B) At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial shall proceed as provided in Rule 454.
Comment This rule provides the procedures for the suppression of evidence in summary cases before the magisterial district judges. See Rule 581 for the procedures for suppression of evidence in cases before a judge of the court of common pleas.
While this rule permits requests for suppression to be made orally at any time prior to trial, nothing in this rule is intended to preclude the defendant from presenting a written request for suppression. Whenever practical, the defendant should provide advanced written notice of the request for suppression to the Commonwealth.
Official Note: New Rule 450 adopted , effective .
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the provisions of the proposed new rule concerning suppression of evidence in summary proceedings published at 34 Pa.B. 34 (January 31, 2004); Supplemental Report explaining the modifications to proposed new Rule 450 providing procedures for suppression of evidence in summary proceedings published at 35 Pa.B. 2864 (May 14, 2005).
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT1
Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 4502
Suppression Motions in Summary CasesThe Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is proposing the Court adopt new Rule 450 (Suppression of Evidence). The new rule would permit magisterial district judges to hear suppression issues in summary cases. The new rule fills the existing gap in the summary case rules concerning the procedures for handling summary case suppression issues.
Background
Over the past several years, the Committee has been reviewing the summary case rules in general, and the issue of suppression motions in cases before the magisterial district judges specifically. The members and a number of correspondents pointed out that because the Criminal Rules are silent concerning summary case suppression issues, there is a lot of confusion among members of the bench and bar about the procedures to follow in order to raise a suppression issue when a summary case is before the magisterial district judge: some magisterial district judges make rulings on suppression issues that are raised before them, while other magisterial district judges do not consider a suppression issue when a defendant raises one.
In view of the Committee's ongoing review of the summary case rules, the interest of the members and the correspondents in procedures for handling a summary case suppression issue raised before a magisterial district judge, the lack of uniformity in and among the judicial districts, and the controversy that has arisen concerning magisterial district judges deciding suppression motions, the Committee agreed that the summary case rules should be amended to provide the procedures for handling summary case suppression issues.
Initially, the Committee proposed providing that a suppression issue in a summary case could be raised only when the summary case is appealed for a trial de novo in the court of common pleas. The proposal was published for comment on January 31, 2004. The response to this proposal was overwhelmingly negative. Some commentators expressed concerns that a defendant would be deprived of his or her constitutional rights; when a defendant is precluded from raising the suppression issue before the magisterial district judge, then many defendants will not raise it because they will ''just want to get the case over and pay the fine,'' rather than going through the lengthy process of appealing for a trial de novo and paying the additional fees in order to have the issue addressed by the common pleas court. Others noted that because magisterial district judges are finders of fact and law and regularly hear admissibility issues, they should hear suppression issues. If the judicial function of a magisterial district judge is to preside over a summary offense, they should preside over the whole proceeding including suppression issues.
In view of these publication comments, the Committee reexamined the issue with an eye towards creating a procedure that would permit suppression issues to be raised in summary cases before magisterial district judges. During the Committee's discussions of the publication comments, the members agreed that, when important rights are violated, these violations should be addressed as soon as practicable. Swift and direct resolution of such issues would also serve to act as a deterrent to illegal police conduct.
On the other hand, the Committee reaffirmed that summary case proceedings are intended to provide a quick and streamlined method of adjudicating minor offenses. The members did not think the new rule should create a complex and elaborate suppression mechanism for summary case trials. The Committee therefore has modified proposed new Rule 450 to permit magisterial district judges to address suppression issues.
Discussion of Rules
Under this proposal, new Rule 450 would contain two paragraphs. Paragraph 450(A) would provide the explicit permission for raising a request for suppression of evidence at a summary trial. The term ''request'' is used instead of ''motion'' to distinguish the procedure for raising suppression in summary cases before the magisterial district judges as being a procedure separate from the motions practice under Rule 581 in cases in the court of common pleas.
The proposed rule would not require that the request be in writing, but the Comment contains language encouraging that the request be in writing.
Paragraph 450(B) would provide that, upon the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the case should proceed to trial before the magisterial district judge as provided in the summary trial procedures of Rule 454.
______
1 The original Report proposing new Rule 450 was published at 34 Pa.B. 34 (January 31, 2004).
2 The proposed new rule is being numbered Rule 450, a number reserved for motions in Chapter 4 Part E (General Procedures in Summary Cases) when the Criminal Rules were reorganized and renumbered in 2000.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 05-926. Filed for public inspection May 13, 2005, 9:00 a.m.]
