Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, L., Jr.
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, L., Jr. - No. 32 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Police obtained a search warrant for Hopkins’s residence based on an affidavit by Detective Fetrow that relied in part on information from a private individual, Shifflet.
- After the search, it was discovered that Shifflet had lied about material facts underlying his tip.
- At the suppression hearing Fetrow testified he reasonably believed Shifflet’s information to be true; the magistrate likewise found probable cause on the four corners of the affidavit.
- The trial court suppressed evidence because Pennsylvania Superior Court precedent (Clark and Antoszyk) required suppression where an informant’s statements proved false.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the question presented is whether a warrant supported by probable cause on its face remains valid when a third-party source later is shown to have lied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant must be invalidated (and resulting evidence suppressed) when a non-governmental informant later is shown to have lied, even though the affidavit on its face established probable cause and the affiant reasonably believed the informant | Commonwealth: A warrant supported by probable cause on its face remains valid if the affiant reasonably believed the informant; later discovery that the informant lied does not vitiate probable cause unless the affiant knowingly or recklessly included falsehoods | Hopkins: False statements by the informant require suppression under existing Pennsylvania precedent (Clark, Antoszyk); the later-discovered falsity undermines the warrant | The court would reverse suppression: probable cause is assessed based on what the affiant reasonably believed at the time; later-discovered falsity by a private informant does not automatically invalidate a facially sufficient warrant unless the affiant knowingly or recklessly misstated facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374 (Pa. 1991) (invalidated facially inadequate warrant; rejected good-faith exception under Pa. Const. art. I, §8)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 624 Pa. 325 (Pa. 2014) (rejected good-faith exception where an arrest warrant had expired)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (to attack a warrant for false statements the defendant must show the affiant knowingly or recklessly included falsehoods)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 513 Pa. 118 (Pa. 1986) (Pennsylvania procedure permits a hearing on affidavit veracity; focuses inquiry on the affiant’s veracity)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 605 Pa. 188 (Pa. 2010) (probable cause depends on facts reasonably believed by the affiant)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 622 Pa. 91 (Pa. 2013) (totality-of-circumstances test for probable cause, including reliability of hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 562 Pa. 187 (Pa. 2000) (probable-cause standard is the same under the Fourth Amendment and Pa. Const. art. I, §8)
- State v. Glenn, 740 A.2d 856 (Conn. 1999) (probable cause judged by what was known to the state at the time; informant inaccuracies do not retroactively defeat probable cause)
- United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983 (7th Cir. 1973) (an officer’s reasonable belief in facts indicating probable cause suffices even if mistaken)
- Commonwealth v. Stickle, 484 Pa. 89 (Pa. 1979) (declarant’s personal involvement can enhance reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 451 Pa. 201 (Pa. 1973) (magistrate cannot make a detached probable-cause determination if given falsified averments)