Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that an anticipatory search warrant for the appellant's home was unsupported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The affidavit did not establish a sufficient nexus between the residence and the alleged drug activity or provide adequate grounds to believe the controlled purchase would occur there. The court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court's order suppressing the evidence seized from the home.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the affidavit established probable cause for an anticipatory search warrant for Wallace's home.
- Whether the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Holdings
- The affidavit did not establish probable cause because it failed to provide a substantial basis to conclude that the triggering controlled purchase would occur at Wallace's residence or that the residence was connected to the sale or storage of drugs.
- The warrant was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8, so the evidence seized from Wallace's residence was properly suppressed.
Key quotations
“When considering whether an anticipatory search warrant was supported by probable cause under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, judicial review is confined to the averments contained within the four corners of the affidavit of probable cause.” (42 A.3d at 1048)
“The high Court has made abundantly plain that the triggering event itself must be probable” (42 A.3d at 1049)
“probable cause to believe that a man has committed a crime on the street does not necessarily give rise to probable cause to search his home.” (42 A.3d at 1050)
Factual background
A confidential informant told Philadelphia police that a person known as “Greg” sold cocaine using a gold Mercedes and could sell four ounces of cocaine at a specified time. Police verified that Gregory Wallace lived at 635 Morris Street and that a telephone number supplied by the informant was associated with him, but the affidavit did not describe any prior drug activity at the residence, the informant's basis of knowledge, or police surveillance linking the residence to drug activity. After the warrant issued, police conducted a controlled purchase at the residence and then searched it, recovering buy money, cocaine, other drugs, paraphernalia, and Wallace's keys.
Procedural history
A magistrate issued an anticipatory search warrant for Wallace's residence. After police conducted the specified controlled purchase and searched the residence, Wallace moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court granted suppression, the Superior Court reversed, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the suppression order.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Jurisdiction was relinquished.