BALLARD SPAHR LLP

By: Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr.

Terence M. Grugan
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Telephone: 215.665.8500
Facsimile: 215.864.8999

Attorneys for
Defendant Stephen R. Reed

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
v.
STEPHEN R. REED

DAUPHlN COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CP-22-CR-5068-2015

DEFENDANT STEPHEN R. REED'S FIRST MOTION FOR

RETURN OF PROPERTY
Defendant Stephen R. Reed, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby
moves, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 588, for return of property and, in
support thereof. avers as follows:

I.

BACKGROUND

A.

Execution of Search Warrants.

1.

Through the execution of five separate search warrants, the Commonwealth

seized approximately 1,791 items from Stephen R. Reed. This case, scheduled for trial starting
on January 23.2017, now involves Mr. Reed facing 112 counts relating to his alleged theft
andlor receipt of these allegedly stolen 112 items. The remaining 1,679 items seized pursuant to
the five search warrants are simply not part of these charges. Accordingly, Mr. Reed seeks the
return of those items.

2.

On April 3, 2015, the Office of the Attorney General executed the first ("Warrant

# 1") of five search warrants.

3.

Warrant #1 authorized the search of the "[o]ffice and (3) storage rooms occupied

by Reed Strategic Advisors, LLC, c/o Stephen R. Reed located on the ground floor within 2 Penn
Center" ("Penn Center").
4.

Warrant # 1 identified as "items to be searched for and seized" a nonspecific

category of objects: "[a]ny and all memorabilia, artifacts and documents which may be missing
from the inventory of the City of Harrisburg."l
5.

The OAG seized 9 items from Penn Center during the execution of Warrant :# 1.

6.

On April 3, 2015, after executing Warrant # 1 at Penn Center, the OAG applied

for an additional warrant to search Penn Center ("Warrant:# 2").

7.

As with Warrant # 1, Warrant # 2 lacked any particularity with respect to the

items to be seized, again listing only: "[a)ny and all memorabilia, artifacts and documents which
may be missing from the inventory of the City of Harrisburg.,,2

8.

Warrant # 2 was executed at Penn Center on April 4, 2015. 3

There is no indication in the affidavit of probable cause supporting Warrant :# 1 that the
OAG made any effort to determine in advance of applying for and executing Warrant:# 1
whether any items were in fact missing from the inventory of the City of Harrisburg and
addressed Warrant:# 1 to discovering those specific items that had beenidentified as
missing.
2

Once again, there is no indication whatsoever in the affidavit of probable cause

supporting Warrant # 2 that any items at all were identified in advance as missing from
the inventory of the City of Harrisburg and the OAG was making an effort to seize those
items.
To date, the OAG has failed to provide any inventory of items seized pursuant to Warrant
# 2, identifying in the receipt/inventory of seized property only "mise items from misc.
rooms."

9.

On May 5,2015, the OAG applied for a third warrant to search Penn Center.

("Warrant =# 3).
10.

Though worded differently from Warrants =# 1 and 2, the items to be seized are

identified with no greater specificity and, indeed, are categorized significantly more broadly and
in a way that admits the OAG had no specific knowledge or infonnation as to what it was
searching for and whether any seized items were related to potential criminal activity: "[a]ny and
all artifacts, memorabilia, collectibles and documents which have been identified, as well as any
artifacts, memorabilia, collectibles and documents that may later be identijkd,4 as the property
of the City of Harrisburg.,,5

11.

Warrant =# 3 was executed on May 7,2015, during which the OAG seized from

Mr. Reed's offices 589 items including any documents related to the City of Harrisburg or
politics in general, and any object. no matter its era or origin, that could conceivably be
considered a "collectible."

12.

The OAG applied for a fourth warrant ("Warrant # 4") on June 1,2015.

13.

Warrant =# 4 was directed to Mr. Reed's residence and, like Warrant =# 3, lacked

any specificity as to the items sought, again listing for seizure: "[a]ny and all artifacts,
memorabilia, collectibles and documents which have been identified. as well as any artifacts.
memorabilia, collectibles and documents that may later be identified, as the property of the City

This formulation begs the question: How can the Commonwealth know what property to
seize if it explicitly is to be identified only after-the-fact? The Commonwealth answered
this quandary by simply seizing virtually everything from Penn Center and, later, Reed's
home.

Continuing in the OAG's pattern of presuming property is the proceeds of a crime

without first detennining whether a crime has even occurred, there is no indication in the
affidavits of probable cause supporting Warrant =# 3 that any items at all were missing
from tbe City of Harrisburg inventory.

of Harrisburg."
14.

Like Warrant # 3, Warrant # 4 is clear on its face that the OAG lacked any basis

to conclude that any specific item it would seize was property missing from the City of
Harrisburg's inventory, instead leaving any purported identification to a post-seizure inspection.
15.

The GAG seized 1,154 items from Mr. Reed's residence on June 2,2015,

comprised of any objects the OAG detenruned met the description of "collectible." In addition
to items western themcd, the OAG seized objects from all points in American and world history,
including World War IT paraphernalia, Egyptian themed items, political memorabilia, and even a
Denver Broncos canvas bag.
16.

On June 9, 2015, the OAG applied for a fifth search warrant ("Warrant # 5").

17.

Warrant # 5 authorized the OAG to search "Gettysburg Militaria & Antiques"

located in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, for a broad and ill-defined category of items that, once
again, indicated from its face that the GAG was neither seeking any specific property nor
targeting property that had been positively identified as missing from the City of Harrisburg
inventory: "[a]ny and all artifacts, memorabilia, collectibles, relics, documents, books and
weapons acquired by Stephen R. Reed which may have been identified as the property of the
city of Harrisburg, Capital Regional Water, fonnerly known as the Harrisburg Authority and the
Grove Family Foundation, as well as any and all items of similar nature which have yet to be

identified as the property of any of the aforementioned entities." Indeed, the wording contained
in Warrant # 5 indicates that the only certainty known to the OAG with respect to the items to be
seized prior to their seizure is that they were the property of Mr. Reed.
18.

Warrant # 5 was executed on June 10,2015 when the OAG seized 39 items

belonging to Reed from the Gettysburg Militaria & Antiques . As with the expansive seizure

conducted at Reed's residence, the OAG seized items of various themes and origins, including
antique fireanns, artwork, Egyptian, and Roman-themed items.
19.

According to the inventories created by the OAG, and not taking into account the

undisclosed number of items seized pursuant to Warrant # 2, the OAG seized approximately
1,791 pieces of property belonging to Reed.

B.

The Commonwealth's Charges.

20.

On July 14,2015, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney

General ("OAG") issued a criminal complaint (the "Complaint"), following the issuance of
Presentment No. 21 by the Thirty-Seventh Statewide Investigating Grand Jury on June 18,2015
(the "Presentment"), charging Mr. Reed with, inter alia, 474 theft offenses, with each item
alleged to be stolen charged under 3 separate statutory provisions.
21.

According to the presentment and complaints, the theft charges asserted against

Mr. Reed related to 158 items purportedly identified as property of the City of Harrisburg and
seized pursuant to Warrants # 1-5.
22.

Nowhere in the Presentment or charging documents does the OAG claim that any

property was discovered missing from the City of Harrisburg's inventory. Instead, the
Presentment describes the process that resulted in theft charges being asserted against Mr. Reed
as follows: "Investigators then began to compare the it~ms discovered in Reed's suite of storage
rooms to those listed on the city's manifest. ... Thousands more artifacts, many of an American
Western theme, were densely packed into the living spaces, basement, and along the stairwells
and hallways. Statuary, oil paintings, pottery, weapons, clothing, a 'vampire hunting kit,' and all
manner of other items were displayed on table tops, walls, in cabinets, on the floor and on top of
television sets and furniture .... The process of cataloguing these items is ongoing, but many
items found in Reed's home appear on the manifest of city property referenced above."
5

23.

On November 16,2015, the OAG filed a Criminal Information, which reduced

the number of Counts against Mr. Reed to 449.

24.

The OAG dropped theft charges with respect to 20 items seized during the

execution of Warrants # 1-5, reducing the number of charged items to 138.

25.

On May 12,2016, upon motion by Mr. Reed, this Court dismissed 305 counts as

time-bared, leaving 144 counts remaining.

26.

On September 23, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a Petition to Amend the

Infonnation, seeking to dismiss additional charges and eliminate additional items it determined
were not City property, further reducing the number of items alleged to be stolen from the
original 158 to 112. 6

n.

DISCUSSION
27.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588(a) provides:

A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not
executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of the
property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful
possession thereof. Such motion shall be ftled in the court of
common pleas for the judicial district in which the property was
seized.

28.

A motion for return of property must be "filed by an accused in the trial court

while that court retains jurisdiction, which is up to thirty days after trial." Commonwealth v.
Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 717 (pa. 2014). Thus, the motion for return of property may be filed by an
6

The revised Information comes one year after the Preliminary Hearing following which
Mr. Reed was originally held over for trial. During that hearing, Mr. Reed presented
evidence that the Commonwealth, in its rush to bring charges against him, had
misidentified the items it has charged him with having stolen. Notwithstanding the
"painstaking" process the OAG claimed to have undertaken with respect to identifying
City of Harrisburg property, the Commonwealth has validated Mr. Reed's argument,
dropping dozens of charges related to items the Commonwealth had originally claimed
were City property but that were, in fact, completely unrelated and distinct property of
Mr. Reed. Many more charges are identically flawed.

accused "during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, or while the trial court retain[s]
jurisdiction." Id.
29.

To retain possession of seized property, the Commonwealth must establish that

that property is contraband. Commonwealth v. Howard, 713 A.2d 89, 92 (Pa. 1998). Thus, the
Commonwealth must establish that each item seized from Reed is either contraband per se or
derivative contraband. Id. "Contraband per se is property the mere possession of which is
unlawful ... Heroin and 'moonshine' whiskey are examples of contraband per se. Derivative
contraband is property innocent in itself, but used in the perpetration of an unlawful act." Id.
30.

The Commonwealth cannot establish that the items seized from Mr. Reed are

contraband. As noted, the entirety of the Conunonwealth's case against Mr. Reed is: it seized
nearly 2,000 items of property belonging to Mr. Reed, then after seizure, consulted a City of
Harrisburg property inventory to detennine if the any seized items appeared to match
descriptions of Harrisburg property. After conducting this analysis, the Commonwealth initially
concluded that 158 items were Harrisburg property. After Mr. Reed challenged the accuracy and
thoroughness of the Common wealth's inspection at the Preliminary Hearing, that number was
reduced first to 138 items then, later, to 112 items - a concession that those items (as well as the
others not charged) were not, in fact, City property.
31.

ImpO:rtantly, as noted on the warrants themselves, the Commonwealth was seizing

any items that fit the incredibly broad category of "collectible" and, only after seizure, were
investigators making any effort to detennine if those items were in fact property of the City of
Harrisburg, a process that necessarily entailed a mass and intentional over-seizure of Mr. Reed's
property. Thus, the Commonwealth's failure to charge an item as stolen is in itself a concession
that the item is not City of Harrisburg property. Accordingly, the Commonwealth cannot meet

its burden of establishing the seized items are contraband and it must, therefore, be returned to
Mr. Reed.
WHEREFORE, for the above reasons, Defendant respectfully requests the return of all
property seized by the Commonwealth pursuant to Warrants # 1-5 that have not been charged in
the operative Infonnation.

Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr.

Terence M . Grugan
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599

Attorneys for Defendant

Stephen R. Reed

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS

v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA

STEPHEN R. REED

CP-22-CR-S068-20IS

ORDER
AND NOW, this _ _ day of _ __ _ _ _ _" 2017, upon consideration of
Defendant's Motion for Return of Property, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is

GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

1.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Terence M. Grugan, hereby certify that on this 30th day of December, 2016, a
true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion of Defendant, Stephen R. Reed, for return of
property was served upon the following via United States first class mail:
Rebecca Franz, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120

lsI Terence M. Grugan

Terence M. Grugan