Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, L., Jr.
164 A.3d 1133
| Pa. | 2017Background
- Police investigated a burglary of 1039 E. Philadelphia St.; suspect Aaron Shifflet implicated a man he called “Radio.”
- Shifflet, who had cuts consistent with the burglary, identified Lorne Brett Hopkins from a photo lineup; Detective Fetrow included Shifflet’s statements in an affidavit and obtained a warrant to search Hopkins’s residence.
- The warrant produced no burglary evidence but uncovered unrelated contraband (drugs, firearms); Hopkins was charged for those items and admitted he used the nickname “Radio.”
- After the search, Shifflet admitted he lied to implicate Hopkins; there was no independent corroboration of Shifflet’s claims in the affidavit.
- Hopkins moved to suppress the evidence; the suppression court granted the motion, the Superior Court affirmed, and the Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court considered whether Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution requires suppression when a warrant’s supporting affidavit relied on third‑party statements later shown to be false, even absent police misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, § 8 requires suppression when an affidavit contains third‑party statements later shown false | Hopkins: False, material statements that produced the warrant violate privacy rights and require suppression regardless of police good faith | Commonwealth: Officer accurately recited what the eyewitness said; good‑faith reliance on an identified eyewitness should avoid suppression (no federal Leon exception needed) | Court: Suppression required under Article I, § 8; good‑faith reliance is immaterial when a warrant is issued solely on admittedly false information |
| Whether Pennsylvania recognizes a Leon‑style good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule under Article I, § 8 | Hopkins: No good‑faith exception; exclusionary rule protects privacy and probable‑cause rigorously | Commonwealth: Follow federal law; good‑faith exception should apply when police act reasonably | Court: Reaffirmed Edmunds and Johnson — no good‑faith exception under Article I, § 8 |
| Whether an affiant’s accurate reporting of a third‑party lie avoids a suppression claim | Hopkins: Accurate recitation of a lie still leads to unconstitutional search if no independent probable cause exists | Commonwealth: Accurate reporting is sufficient; reliability of an identified citizen informant may be presumed | Court: Accurate reporting of a third‑party falsehood does not cure lack of probable cause; suppression is proper |
| Appropriate remedy for warrant issued on materially false information | Hopkins: Suppression of seized evidence and derivative statements | Commonwealth: Evidence should be admissible because of officer’s reasonable reliance | Held: Suppression is the proper remedy under Pennsylvania law to vindicate privacy rights |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (announced a federal good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (rejected a Leon‑style good‑faith exception under Article I, § 8; emphasized privacy and probable‑cause protections)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 86 A.3d 182 (Pa. 2014) (reaffirmed Edmunds and held good‑faith mistakes do not avoid suppression under state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 602 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Super. 1992) (plurality adopting Edmunds‑based suppression where affidavit contained third‑party falsehoods)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 518 A.2d 1187 (Pa. 1986) (permitted challenges to an affiant’s veracity under state law without Franks preliminary showing)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (federal standard for requiring a hearing to challenge affidavit veracity; distinguished by Pennsylvania decisions)
- Commonwealth v. Bomar, 826 A.2d 831 (Pa. 2003) (describing standard of review for suppression rulings)