Commonwealth v. Clark
28 A.3d 1284
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Clark involved a search warrant for 4242 Salmon Street based on a police affidavit describing a controlled drug buy by a confidential informant (CI).
- Officer Kidd, with extensive narcotics experience, swore the CI described a white male named Steve distributing cocaine from the residence and driving a specific white Grand Am with FRG-5450 plates.
- Police conducted a controlled buy the day before applying for the warrant, observing a man matching the CI’s description enter the Grand Am, travel to the residence, and return with cocaine.
- The Grand Am was verified to be registered to Steve Clark at 4242 Salmon Street, which the warrant sought to search.
- A Municipal Court issued the search warrant and police seized cash, cocaine, cutting agents, paraphernalia, a handgun, and mail addressed to Steve Clark; Clark moved to suppress.
- Lower courts suppressed, ruling the affidavit failed to articulate CI reliability/basis of knowledge and lacked a connection to the residence beyond an off-site transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether totality of the circumstances supports probable cause despite CI gaps | Clark: reliability/basis of knowledge not stated | Clark: no probable cause without explicit CI basis | Probable cause exists when totality supports a fair probability of contraband at the location |
| Whether corroboration of the CI’s details by police validates the tip | Clark: corroboration not sufficient without CI past reliability | Clark: independent corroboration can sustain probable cause | Yes; corroborated controlled buy details bolster reliability under Gates framework |
| Whether the observed controlled buy link to the residence suffices to search it | Clark: no linkage between purchase and residence shown | Clark: common-sense link exists through leaving/returning to residence | Yes; a common-sense connection between transaction and residence supports probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (rejected two-pronged test; adopted totality-of-circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 (1985) (Pennsylvania adoption of Gates standard under state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 (1999) (informant reliability/basis of knowledge viewed in ordinary, non-technical manner)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 589 Pa. 43 (2006) (police corroboration of informant details can establish probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 407 Pa. Super. 415 (1991) (indicates link between informant’s residence and observed activity; focus on probable cause to search)
- Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 917 A.2d 338 (Pa. Super. 2007) (no talismanic phrases required; reliability assessed under totality)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) (precedent for informant reliability/basis of knowledge concepts in Aguilar-Spinelli framework)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (two-prong test for informant reliability and basis of knowledge)