Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court's order vacating Jerome Brown's judgment of sentence in a per curiam order. The dissent argued that disclosure of a confidential informant's identity should require a substantial preliminary showing of potential material misrepresentation in the search-warrant affidavit under Commonwealth v. Bonasorte. The dissent maintained that Brown's reliance on an apartment sign-in log and his denial of the allegations did not satisfy that threshold.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court properly vacated Brown's judgment of sentence and remanded after concluding that Brown was entitled to disclosure of the confidential informant's identity during suppression proceedings.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order vacating Brown's judgment of sentence.
Key quotations
“AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2005, the Order of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED.” (873 A.2d at 1275)
“A defendant must first make a "substantial preliminary showing" of potential falsity.” (873 A.2d at 1276)
“Absent threshold reasons to question the officer's veracity, mere denial of the allegations by an accused is not, nor should it be, sufficient to meet the Bonasorte test.” (873 A.2d at 1277)
Factual background
A magistrate issued a search warrant for Brown's apartment based on an affidavit from Officer Levell Jenkins. The affidavit stated that two reliable confidential informants reported Brown was selling crack cocaine and that one informant, supervised by Jenkins, purchased drugs in Brown's apartment. The ensuing search recovered crack cocaine, plastic baggies, and marijuana, and Brown was charged with multiple drug offenses. Brown sought disclosure of the participating informant's identity, asserting that an apartment sign-in log might show the informant was not present, but the trial court denied the request.
Procedural history
Brown was charged with drug offenses after a search of his apartment produced crack cocaine, plastic baggies, and marijuana. During suppression proceedings, he sought disclosure of the confidential informant's identity to compare it with an apartment sign-in log, but the trial court denied the request. After Brown was convicted, the Superior Court vacated his judgment of sentence and remanded; the Supreme Court affirmed that order.