Com. v. Smith, L.
1802 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Larry Eugene Smith was convicted after a jury trial of multiple drug-related offenses and receiving stolen property; aggregate sentence 9½–19 years.
- Charges arose from a seven-month state police investigation using a confidential informant (CI) who conducted multiple controlled buys of marijuana from Smith and co-defendant Gary Williams.
- On May 8, 2014, surveillance tracked Smith and Williams between the CI’s residence and 1818 15th Avenue; after an arrest, $500 of prerecorded buy money was found on Smith.
- A search warrant executed for the second-floor apartment at 1818 15th Avenue (Williams’ listed residence) recovered drugs, distribution paraphernalia, $1,990 cash, and a firearm; mail to both Smith and Williams and a key for the apartment were found.
- Smith moved to suppress evidence, arguing the affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient (lack of CI reliability, poor description of premises); suppression and a reconsideration motion were denied, and Smith appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of affidavit/probable cause for warrant | Commonwealth: affidavit, corroborated by surveillance and controlled buys, gave probable cause | Smith: affidavit lacked sufficient facts within its four corners to show probable cause for searching the apartment | Court: Affidavit provided a substantial basis under totality-of-circumstances; probable cause supported the warrant |
| Particularity of premises description in warrant | Commonwealth: the application sufficiently identified the 2nd-floor apartment by address and physical description | Smith: description of the house/apartment insufficiently specific | Court: Description (address, floor, color, balcony, vehicle VIN) met Pa.R.Crim.P. requirements; particularity adequate |
| Reliability/competency of CI and need for live testimony (Hall) | Commonwealth: CI acted as an agent in controlled buys; police corroboration made CI’s information reliable without detailed prior track record | Smith: affidavit omitted CI reliability averment and trial court erred by relying on CI statements without live testimony as required by Hall | Court: Hall inapposite because CI’s tips were corroborated by independent surveillance and controlled buys; affidavit did not need detailed informant history; no suppression required |
| Denial of motion to reconsider (written CI statement) | Smith: trial court denied reconsideration based on availability of written CI statement which he alleges did not exist; seeks new trial or new suppression hearing | Commonwealth: denial proper because suppression denial was correct on the merits | Court: Even if written statement issue existed, suppression ruling was correct on other grounds; denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 121 A.3d 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (standard of review for suppression denials)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 42 A.3d 1017 (Pa. 2012) (warrants must be supported by probable cause under state and federal constitutions)
- Commonwealth v. Arthur, 62 A.3d 424 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause and magistrate’s common-sense assessment)
- Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 917 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (informant reliability need only be averred; prior arrest/conviction history not required)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 302 A.2d 342 (Pa. 1973) (veracity of affidavit recitals can be attacked at suppression hearing; cross-examination of informant issues)
- Commonwealth v. Doty, 48 A.3d 451 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (appellate court may affirm trial court on any basis supported by record)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)