Commonwealth v. Jackson
62 A.3d 433
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Jackson appeals a 5-year aggregate sentence following a nonjury trial on marijuana-related offenses and drug paraphernalia.
- Appeal challenges the denial of suppression of evidence obtained after a search warrant derived in part from information gathered during execution of an MHPA 302 mental health warrant.
- Officers served a signed 302 warrant at the residence with Katie Bates, who advised Jackson would not cooperate and carried a weapon.
- Entry occurred after Bates provided a key; officers smelled marijuana and observed drug paraphernalia, then encountered a locked room with a marijuana grow operation.
- A search warrant for the residence and contraband was obtained the next day; evidence obtained was challenged as derivative of an invalid 302 warrant.
- Trial court ruled the 302 warrant was sufficiently supported and suppression was denied; appellate issue centers on the MHPA clear-and-present-danger standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 302 MHPA warrant was sufficiently supported by facts showing clear and present danger. | Jackson contends the application lacks acts in furtherance of threats to satisfy 50 P.S. § 7301(b). | Jackson's claim fails because the record shows overt acts in furtherance of threats and sufficient basis for issuance. | Yes; the 302 warrant was properly issued, with sufficient overt acts to meet the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M., 556 Pa. 63 (1999) (standard for MHPA 302 sufficiency is less exacting than probable cause)
- In re R.D., 739 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1999) (acts in furtherance of threats can satisfy clear-and-present-danger requirement)
- In re Woodside, 699 A.2d 1293 (Pa. Super. 1997) (overt acts may constitute additional support for 302 warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Galendez, 27 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2011) (burden on Commonwealth at suppression to show properly obtained evidence)
- Boczkowski, 846 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2004) (precedential considerations in suppression review)
- Ermil, 866 A.2d 420 (Pa. Super. 2005) (binding factual review when suppressing orders are appealed)