Com. v. Langley, D.
Com. v. Langley, D. No. 124 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Police applied for a warrant to search 6818 Clover Lane (Dwight A. Langley’s residence) for controlled substances after citizen and DEA tips in June 2014 alleging marijuana sales from the address.
- Surveillance in August 2014 showed a large Black male entering/exiting the residence and driving a gray Nissan Armada; J-NET photo checks linked that male to Dwight Langley.
- Records showed prior association of Langley with the address and a 2005 arrest for drug-related offenses (resulting in not guilty verdict).
- An interrupted-burglary response earlier had produced a clear plastic bag of marijuana returned to evidence.
- Within 48 hours before the warrant application officers retrieved trash from the curb at the property that contained mail addressed to the resident and two small plastic bags with residue that field-tested positive for marijuana.
- Warrant issued August 21, 2014; search executed August 22, 2014, yielding ~69 lbs of marijuana (mostly in the basement), scales, packaging, cash, records, passport, and mail. Langley was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and appealed the denial of his suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the residence | Affidavit lacked sufficiently recent and reliable information; tips were stale and uncorroborated | Affidavit included recent corroboration (marijuana residue in trash) plus surveillance and records linking Langley to the house and prior tip asserting large amounts in the basement | Magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause; search warrant valid |
| Whether information in the affidavit was stale | Older tips (≈2 months), 2005 arrest too remote to support probable cause | Recent trash recovery (<48 hours) and tip alleging ongoing large-scale storage made older information non-stale when considered with corroboration | Information not stale because recent corroborating evidence showed ongoing activity |
| Whether anonymous tips lacked indicia of reliability | Anonymous/citizen tips lacked demonstrated veracity and no declarations against interest | Independent police investigation (surveillance, J-NET photo match, trash testing, mail) corroborated key allegations | Anonymous tips sufficiently corroborated by police investigation to support probable cause |
| Whether suppression record was limited to the four corners of the affidavit | Appellant contended the affidavit’s contents must alone support probable cause | Commonwealth relied on the affidavit showing corroboration and nexus to the house | Court reviewed four-corners and found affidavit provided a commonsense probability contraband would be at the residence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 150 A.3d 32 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 830 A.2d 554 (Pa. 2003) (four-corners test for warrant affidavits; totality of circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (staleness and continued criminal activity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Karns, 566 A.2d 615 (Pa. Super. 1989) (large-scale marijuana operation can show continuity; staleness not dispositive)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985) (commonsense, nontechnical probable cause analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Novak, 335 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 1975) (seven-week-old uncorroborated informant tip found stale)
- Commonwealth v. Corleto, 477 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 1984) (surveillance corroboration of anonymous tip can establish probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Singleton, 603 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Super. 1992) (anonymous citizen tips may be credited when supplemented by police investigation)