Com. v. Hill, S.
Com. v. Hill, S. No. 1080 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Police conducted surveillances and controlled buys targeting Syeen Hill in Lancaster City; Hill lived at 47 Caroline St. Apt #2.
- Officers observed Hill repeatedly leave his residence, meet unknown persons briefly on foot and in a silver 2003 Chevrolet Impala, then return.
- One controlled purchase: CI#1, under police direction and searched before/after, bought cocaine from Hill; officers saw Hill exit his apartment, meet CI, deliver drugs, then return.
- Affiant’s affidavit recited these observations and the affiant’s training/experience that dealers keep contraband at residences.
- Magistrate issued a warrant for Hill’s residence, person, and vehicle; suppression court suppressed evidence from the residence but denied suppression as to person/vehicle.
- Commonwealth appealed; Superior Court reviewed whether the affidavit provided probable cause to search Hill’s residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause to search Hill’s residence | Affidavit’s totality (surveillance, controlled buy, repeated short meetings, affiant experience) created a fair probability contraband was at the residence | Affidavit lacked nexus: informants didn’t say drugs came from home, transactions suggested street/vehicle sales, quantity not shown | Warrant supported: magistrate had substantial basis; suppression court erred by applying de novo review and demanding greater certainty |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1986) (probable cause standard: practical, common-sense fair-probability test)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to informant tips)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (reviewing courts must defer to magistrate and seek substantial evidence supporting issuance)
- Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, 128 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinguishing Kline/Way; affiant’s facts can support nexus to residence)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (observed leave-residence->transaction->return supports nexus to home)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 595 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1991) (observed sales followed by reentry into residence can justify search of home)
- Commonwealth v. Kline, 335 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1975) (affidavit failing to state where a private transaction occurred may lack nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Way, 492 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1985) (facts showing mobile base of operations may not support searching residence)