Com. v. Ung, N., 2319 EDA 2015

Confidential informant (C/I) with prior reliable narcotics leads made four controlled buys from a male known as “SP,” who was identified as living at 517 Porter St. and using two phone numbers to arrange sales.
On each controlled buy the C/I was searched, given prerecorded buy money, called the target number, met “SP,” and returned immediate samples (marijuana or cocaine) which tested positive.
Police observed the suspect leave 517 Porter St., conduct buys in the neighborhood, and return to 517 Porter St.; notably, officers observed such conduct on December 16, 2014 and again on January 6, 2015 (two days before the warrant application).
Officer Kapusniak’s affidavit recited those controlled buys, his 22 years and 5,000+ narcotics investigations experience, and requested a search warrant for 517 Porter St.
A warrant issued on January 7, 2015 and was executed January 8; police recovered cocaine and marijuana packets, prescription pills, cash, and a loaded handgun; defendant was charged with multiple drug and weapons offenses.
The suppression court granted the defendant’s motion, holding the affidavit’s information was stale and failed to tie ongoing criminal activity to the residence; the Commonwealth appealed.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Ung's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit supplied probable cause to search 517 Porter St.	Affidavit established probable cause: reliable C/I + four corroborated controlled buys, including observations of the suspect leaving and returning to 517 Porter St., and conduct within 2 days of the warrant showing ongoing activity.	Information was stale and vague; affidavit failed to show current, ongoing criminal activity at the residence or a sufficient nexus between the drugs and 517 Porter St.	Reversed suppression court. The corroborated buys and observation of the suspect returning to the residence shortly before the warrant supported a fair probability contraband would be found there.

Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (informant credibility and police corroboration can establish probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985) (adopting totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for informant-based probable cause)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1995) (evidence that activity continued up to warrant issuance cures potential staleness)
Commonwealth v. Gagliardi, 128 A.3d 790 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate deference to magistrate’s probable cause finding)
Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (staleness doctrine and analysis of evidence type and crime nature)