Should a cellphone that may contain video of and information about the 2022 death of Edward Fomby allegedly being “a hit” be admitted into evidence against the man accused of shooting him?
That’s what the Superior Court has to decide in the homicide case against Frederick “Ricky” Camejo, 30, of Congress Street, Bradford. The case is on appeal by the McKean County District Attorney’s office after evidence from the cellphone was suppressed in McKean County Court for the warrant being “overbroad.”
According to the criminal complaint, at 3:02 a.m. May 29, 2022, Camejo and Edward “Bo” Fomby, 38, of Buffalo, N.Y., were arguing in front of Camejo’s residence when Camejo pulled out a handgun and fired into the air and across the street. When Fomby turned and started to leave the scene, Camejo shot him in the back and leg, killing him, police said.
Police obtained a search warrant and seized items including Camejo’s cell phone, legally owned firearms from his residence, video surveillance and a list of other items. His attorney, Justin Panighetti of Erie, challenged the seizure of the cellphone, saying it was outside the scope of what police were legally able to take. He referred to a warrant that was later issued specifically for the cellphone — “The warrant appears to highlight two statements from individuals suggesting this situation was a ‘hit.’ However, neither provide any statements indicating their basis of knowledge that such a statement was accurate. Further, they did not indicate that cell phone communications were used to set up this supposed ‘hit’” so the cellphone should be suppressed,” Panighetti argued.
In McKean County Court, Judge John Pavlock agreed, said the warrant was overbroad, and ordered the cellphone suppressed. District Attorney Stephanie Vettenburg-Shaffer filed an appeal, claiming exigent circumstances existed for the phone to be seized.
Shaffer’s office filed a brief in support of their argument Oct. 9, while Camejo’s attorney filed one Nov. 8.
Shaffer’s argument suggested inevitable discovery of the phone during the investigation, exigent circumstances and/or consent, as Camejo’s wife showed investigators the phone the night of the shooting, according to court records.
She explained Chief Detective Ryan Yingling, an investigator with the district attorney’s office, was told by Antrika Camejo that her and her husband’s phones operated the home’s video surveillance, and showed him. “There was a legitimate fear that evidence would be destroyed,” Shaffer wrote. Yingling seized two phones and a box that Antrika Camejo had said were parts of the surveillance system, independent of the Bradford City Police investigation or warrant, Shaffer argued.
Panighetti countered her argument. “What we have here is the commonwealth creating their own urgency by failing to properly draft a legally sufficient warrant,” the appellant brief read in part. Panighetti said the affidavit of probable cause of the search warrant did not support the seizure of the phone, no exigent circumstances existed, and Yingling was not operating as an “independent source” from Bradford City Police, according to the brief.
The matter is listed to be argued before a panel of Superior Court judges, but a date has yet to be set.
