(MCKEAN COUNTY, Pennsylvania: March 20, 2024): District Attorney Stephanie Vettenburg-Shaffer reports that the Superior Court has reversed a McKean County Judge who had previously granted a defense motion to suppress the seizure of a homicide defendant’s cell phone. 

On May 29, 2022, City of Bradford Police responded to a shooting death on Congress Street in front of the residence of Frederick Camejo.  They notified DA Vettenburg-Shaffer who responded to the scene as did Chief County Detective Ryan Yingling.  During the investigation, Officers were advised that the events leading up to the death had been captured on the home’s surveillance system.  Bradford City Officers drafted a search warrant to seize the surveillance system and cell phones. Camejo was charged with Homicide.  His defense filed a motion to suppress, asserting that the warrant did not contain probable cause to seize Camejo’s call phone – that is, that the warrant failed to contain facts to suggest that evidence of a crime would be found on the phone.

At the suppression hearing, Chief County Detective Ryan Yingling testified that he responds to scenes as an arm of the District Attorney’s Office – both to run, in essence, a parallel investigation for the DA but also to assist the responding officers, in this case City of Bradford Police. He went with City Officers in executing their warrant but his focus was on the surveillance system. 

The Superior Court summarized that, on May 29, 2022, Bradford City Police obtained a search warrant to search Camejo’s house and to seize the surveillance system, cell phones, and other things.  The Court summarized the language of the warrant. 

It then summarized the findings by the McKean County Court, some of which was shown on bodycam footage played at the hearing:  Chief Yingling met with City of Bradford Police and was briefed on the case.  The Bradford Police Department Officer told him he had a warrant to search the house and referenced the surveillance system.  Yingling had earlier learned that the security system had been said to have captured the shooting. 

The encounter between Yingling, the City Officer and Camejo’s wife who was at the residence when the officers knocked on the door was analyzed.  When Chief Yingling told her that they were interested in the surveillance system, she said that the system had not been running after all.  He asked if she would show them and she agreed.  She led the officers to the bedroom and turned on the system and they learned the system had, in fact, captured the events.  Through Yingling’ s conversation with her, he learned that the surveillance system is accessed by the cell phones.  He then seized the entire system, including the cell phones, because he knew the Officer’s warrant authorized seizure of the system.  The Superior Court noted that Chief Yingling asked questions about the surveillance system and how to access it and assured Camejo’s wife she was not under arrest or in custody.  She then continued to talk to both Officers willingly and she showed them the captured video footage and how to gain access.  The system is accessed by the cell phones.  The Court noted that the conversation between the defendant’s wife and the Officers was friendly. 

DA Vettenburg-Shaffer argued to the Superior Court that, while the defense asserted the City of Bradford Police Officer failed to include sufficient probable cause in the warrant to seize the phone, the Officer included significant justification to seize the surveillance system and, while Chief County Detective Yingling was at the residence, he only then learned what the system was comprised of – and it included the cell phones.

The Superior Court agreed finding that the warrant included probable cause to seize the surveillance system and Chief Yingling identified the system from speaking with Camejo’s wife and, therefore, the warrant supported the seizure.

DA Vettenburg-Shaffer: “I am obviously happy with the Superior Court’s ruling on this evidence.  In a serious case such as this, the Officers have the critical responsibility of scene security, evidence preservation, and evidence collection through search warrants.  In every major case in the County, I request the Chief County Detective to respond as the investigative arm of the District Attorney’s Office.  In this case, his interaction with Camejo’s wife resulted in his identification, obtainment and preservation of a key piece of evidence in the case – the surveillance system which captured evidence of the shooting as well as all its components.   He learned what the surveillance system was comprised of and it included the cell phones that have now been determined to have been lawfully seized by the Superior Court.”