Com. v. Manuel, C., Com. v. Manuel, C. No. 1048 MDA 2015

Police obtained information from a confidential informant (CI) who reported within 72 hours that he had been inside Appellants’ home and personally observed multiple marijuana plants, packaged marijuana for sale, and growing equipment (grow tent, humidifier, soil, tools).
The CI was identified (not anonymous) and had previously supplied information that led to a felony arrest.
An affidavit based on the CI’s tip was presented to a magistrate, who issued a search warrant for the residence; police executed the warrant and seized evidence leading to drug charges against Charles and Timothy Manuel.
Appellants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause because it failed to sufficiently corroborate the CI’s tip and did not adequately establish the CI’s reliability.
The majority of the panel concluded the warrant lacked probable cause; Judge Stabile dissented, arguing the CI’s first‑hand observations and prior reliability satisfied the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test and no further corroboration was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause for a search warrant based on the CI's tip	CI’s first‑hand observations and prior reliability created a fair probability that evidence would be found; magistrate’s decision entitled to deference	Affidavit lacked sufficient corroboration and indicia of reliability to establish probable cause	Dissent: probable cause existed under totality of circumstances; magistrate had substantial basis. (Majority held otherwise.)
Whether independent corroboration of a CI’s personal observations is always required	Not required when CI provides detailed first‑hand observations and has prior reliable information	Required here because affidavit lacked further corroborating investigation	Dissent: corroboration not always required; first‑hand tip and prior reliability suffice. (Majority imposed greater corroboration requirement.)

Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (probable cause exists when there is a fair probability evidence will be found in a particular place)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (overview of Gates-era totality‑of‑the‑circumstances approach to informant tips)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (abandoning Aguilar‑Spinelli in favor of totality of the circumstances for probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1995) (informant's first‑hand observations and prior reliability can obviate need for independent corroboration)
Commonwealth v. Stamps, 427 A.2d 141 (Pa. 1981) (search warrant upheld where reliable informant provided first‑hand observations of drug possession)
Commonwealth v. Repak, 138 A.3d 666 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discussing review of affidavits and totality of circumstances)