Monday, October 6, 2008

DA's Answer to Kerekes' Motion to Supress Evidence from Vehicle


1. Admitted that the Defendant Kerekes is lodged in the Luzerne County Correctional Facility; the Defendant is not eligible for bail due to the pending homicide and related charges.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted in part. Pennsylvania authorities also contacted Virginia authorities to make them aware that there was an active warrant for the Defendants. In further response thereto, when an arrest warrant is issued by a local Pennsylvania magistrate, the warrant is automatically entered into the National Crime Information Center (hereinafter “NCIC”) index and immediately becomes available to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

4. Admitted only that the Defendants were apprehended prior to the arrival of Pennsylvania authorities. It is denied that there was no valid arrest warrant for the Defendants prior to the arrival of Pennsylvania authorities in Virginia.

5. Denied. A Pennsylvania arrest warrant for homicide and related charges was issued prior to the Defendants being apprehended in Virginia. Furthermore, a search warrant was issued by the Virginia Beach Circuit Court on the same day, May 15, 2007, for the Defendants and their property based on charges of Conspiracy to violate the Virginia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (hereinafter “RICO”), Conspiracy to Launder Money and Conspiracy to Receive Money from the Earnings of Male or Female Prostitutes.

6. Admitted. The Defendants were arrested, their car was lawfully impounded and subject to forfeiture as a fruit of the Defendants’ illegal enterprise. The Defendants’ vehicle was subject to an inventory search at the Virginia Beach Police Department’s Special Investigations Division, as well as, a search pursuant to the Virginia RICO search warrant/search warrant.

7. Admitted that the Commonwealth may seek to introduce certain evidence obtained from the Defendants’ vehicle as a result of the inventory search.

8. It is admitted that the Commonwealth provided the Defendants with a copy of the Virginia RICO search warrant. It is denied that the search warrant only permits a search of the Defendants’ home and vehicles on the curtilage; the warrant also allows the search of any and all assets, personal property, luxury items, jewelry, U.S. currency, vehicles, or any and all items obtained, used, or associated with the furtherance of the criminal enterprise, or associated with the laundering of assets derived in whole or in part from the criminal enterprise, or prostitution ring.

9. Admitted.

10. Denied. The Commonwealth denies that the Defendants’ arrest and the subsequent search and seizure of property was conducted in violation of the United States, Virginia and/or Pennsylvania Constitutions In further response thereto, both a valid Pennsylvania Arrest Warrant and a valid Virginia Search Warrant existed at the time of the seizure of property.

WHEREFORE, as set forth above, the Commonwealth respectfully submits that the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress should be denied and dismissed.