262 A.3d 1276
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background
- Police affidavit by Officer Stephen Kelch (Attorney General’s Drug Task Force) relied on a confidential informant (CI) who said Nicholson sold crack, drove a blue Dodge Caliber, and lived at 1235 6th Avenue, New Brighton.
- Two controlled purchases were arranged using the CI and marked money; both buys occurred in Nicholson’s vehicle while officers observed from a distance.
- After each buy officers observed Nicholson drive to or from 1235 6th Avenue; on the second occasion he left home and made two stops (one at the post office) before the buy.
- The affidavit also included boilerplate “training and experience” statements that drug traffickers commonly store drugs, records, and weapons in residences and other places under their control.
- A Magisterial District Judge issued a warrant; the subsequent search turned up cocaine, paraphernalia, weapons, and cash; Nicholson moved to suppress and the suppression court granted the motion.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it held the affidavit failed to establish the required substantial nexus between the drug sales and Nicholson’s home, and the officer’s general experience statements could not substitute for such nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search Nicholson’s residence | Totality of circumstances and magistrate deference: officers saw Nicholson return to home after buys, supporting a nexus to the residence | Buys occurred in vehicle; CI never said drugs were kept at the home; observed stops suggest drugs could come from elsewhere; boilerplate experience is insufficient | Warrant invalid: affidavit lacked substantial nexus to the home; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Way, 492 A.2d 1151 (Pa. Super. 1985) (following a sale and surveillance to a home does not automatically establish probable cause to search the home; vehicle may be dealer’s base of operations)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. Super. 1985) (CI specifically stating drugs are kept at residence can establish nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (corroborated CI reports that contraband is at residence can support probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009) (probable cause judged by totality of circumstances and commonsense review)
- Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040 (Pa. 2012) (probable cause that a person committed a street crime does not automatically justify a home search; need substantial nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Kline, 335 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 1975) (allegations unsupported by facts are insufficient to infer criminal activity at premises)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (officer experience is relevant only if linked by facts demonstrating a nexus between the experience and the place to be searched)
- Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, 128 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reviewing court must ensure issuing authority had a substantial basis for probable cause; deferential, commonsense view required)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 177 A.3d 263 (Pa. Super. 2017) (concurring observation that drug dealers often store contraband away from their homes; absence of connection to home weakens probable cause)