Com. v. Adorno, I.
291 A.3d 412
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- Scranton PD observed a Facebook Live video of user “Zay - Yaho” (identified as Isaiah Adorno) dancing while handling, loading, and unloading a firearm.
- Scranton provided a recording and other social-media images (allegedly showing firearms and narcotics inside a residence) to Officer Petrucci, who learned Adorno lived at 309 Laurel Street, Archbald.
- Landlord Thomas Pratico viewed the Facebook video and told officers he recognized the room in the video as the kitchen of 309 Laurel Street and that Adorno resided there; Petrucci included these statements in an affidavit and obtained a search warrant.
- Police executed the warrant and seized the gun shown in the video, two other firearms, and a quantity of prescription medication.
- At the suppression hearing, defense evidence (friend Savannah Albakri) suggested the video was filmed in her apartment, not Adorno’s; the trial court granted suppression, finding no substantial nexus between the video crime and the premises searched.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the affidavit established probable cause and any factual mistake was not a deliberate misrepresentation under Franks.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Adorno's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the issuing authority had a substantial basis to find probable cause to search 309 Laurel St. | Affidavit showed social-media evidence of firearms/narcotics inside Adorno’s home and landlord identified the room; thus probable cause existed. | The video was not filmed in Adorno’s apartment; no substantial nexus between the criminal activity shown and the premises searched. | Court: Probable cause existed on the four corners of the affidavit; landlord identification and social-media evidence supplied a sufficient nexus. |
| Whether the factual mistake about the location in the warrant was a deliberate/material misrepresentation invalidating the warrant | The location error was inadvertent; officers reasonably relied on landlord identification and only learned of the mistake at the hearing. | The affidavit contained materially false information about the place depicted, so the warrant was invalid. | Court: Adorno did not allege or offer proof of deliberate or recklessly false statements under Franks; suppression on that ground was erroneous. |
| Whether the four-corners of the affidavit legally justified the search of the listed residence | The affidavit, viewed on its face, linked the video and social-media evidence to 309 Laurel St., satisfying the four-corners test. | The suppression court’s credibility findings undermined the affidavit’s nexus to the premises. | Court: Warrant affidavit, on its face, established probable cause despite later defense testimony; suppression reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Way, 492 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1985) (warrant invalidated for lack of nexus between street crime and premises)
- Commonwealth v. Nicholson, 262 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2021) (warrant unsupported where affidavit lacked link from criminal activity to home)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (defendant must allege and offer proof of deliberate or reckless falsehoods to attack warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764 (Pa. 2017) (warrant invalid if based on deliberate misstatements unless probable cause remains)
- Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Franks challenge fails without offer of proof of deliberate or reckless misstatements)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Franks claim requires specific offer of proof of intentional/reckless falsehoods)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 24 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2011) (probable cause standard for search warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (probable cause defined by totality of circumstances)