Com. v. Hill, S.
Com. v. Hill, S. No. 1080 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- The appeal concerns suppression of evidence based on an affidavit for a search warrant targeting Syeen Hill's residence in Lancaster County.
- Detective Weber initiated the investigation after obtaining Hill's address from the Lancaster County Probation Office, not from a confidential informant tip.
- The affidavit described a single controlled purchase and Hill's conduct with unknown individuals near his residence, but lacked detail about where, when, and duration of the transactions.
- The majority found nexus between Hill's cocaine business and his residence, relying on phrases that the activity was consistent with contraband and that drug dealers keep contraband at home.
- The dissent argues those phrases do not establish a nexus absent corroborating facts, and notes the affidavit did not show Hill kept drugs at his residence or that informants corroborated such a claim.
- The dissent compares the case to Commonwealth v. Kline and Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, contending the affidavit here is insufficient to show probable cause for a residence-based search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the affidavit establish nexus between Hill's drug business and his residence? | Hill's business nexus is not shown by a single transaction and generic statements. | Observations of conduct near the residence plus informant corroboration support nexus. | No; nexus not sufficiently established. |
| Is probable cause to search Hill's residence established without corroborating informant details? | Lack of where/when/how long details undermine probable cause. | Corroborating informants and observed activity suffice for probable cause. | No; probable cause lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kline, 335 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1975) (insufficient where transaction details lack location and timing)
- Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, 128 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2015) (presence of multiple transactions not binding without residence nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 595 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1991) (informant tip linked to defendant's address and transactions near residence)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 595 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 2011) (informant identified residence as place of cocaine packaging and distribution)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 151 A.3d 170 (Pa. Super. 2016) (officer experience may be considered but cannot substitute specific facts)