Com V Quarto M

Marcel Nicolai Quarto appealed his conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and fentanyl following a 2022 traffic stop by Trooper Benjamin J. Eppley. During the stop, passenger Christi Novak was observed with an orange trash can typically used to store crack cocaine, and 56 vials of crack cocaine were found on her person. A search warrant executed on Quarto's vehicle yielded 571 containers of suspected crack cocaine, 223 unstamped baggies of suspected fentanyl, 55 baggies of fentanyl stamped 'Modema,' 37 crack pipes, bulk U.S. currency, and drug paraphernalia. A Samsung smartphone was found in the vehicle, and a search warrant was obtained based on the trooper's affidavit stating criminals regularly use cell phones to organize drug sales. The phone search revealed text messages consistent with drug trafficking and photos matching drug packaging materials. Quarto moved to suppress the phone search, arguing the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the phone and the crimes. The trial court denied suppression, finding Quarto as the vehicle owner with control over the vehicle where massive quantities of drugs were found, and affirmed on appeal.

Whether the lower court erred by denying Quarto's suppression motion, where the affidavit of probable cause to search the contents of a cell phone found in his vehicle failed to establish a nexus between the phone and the suspected crime committed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence, holding that the affidavit of probable cause established a sufficient nexus between Quarto's cell phone and the charged crimes (PWID, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia). The court found that Quarto, as the vehicle owner and driver, had possession and control of the vehicle containing significant quantities of narcotics and drug paraphernalia, and that the trooper's experience justified the probable cause determination. The court concluded there was a fair probability that Quarto was engaged in the trafficking and sale of narcotics and that evidence of such activities would be reflected in the contents of his cell phone.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. The court found that the affidavit of probable cause established a nexus between Quarto's cell phone and the crimes charged (PWID, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia), and concluded that the trial court's determination was supported by the record and free from legal error. The judgment of sentence was affirmed.

The Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. A search of cell phone contents requires a warrant based on probable cause determined by a neutral issuing authority. The affidavit of probable cause must provide a substantial basis for determining probable cause. A request to search a cell phone must provide a link between the cell phone and the crimes listed in the warrant. The totality of circumstances test applies when considering whether probable cause exists. The reviewing court must accord deference to the issuing authority's probable cause determination and view the information in a common-sense, non-technical manner.

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act