Commonwealth v. Jacoby, T., Aplt.
709 CAP
| Pa. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Timothy Matthew Jacoby was investigated for a homicide; police sought a search warrant for his residence to find the murder weapon and related items (guns, ammunition, packaging).
- Detective Layden submitted a probable cause affidavit 15 months after the murder, identifying Jacoby as the perpetrator and noting the need to search for firearms.
- Trial court found the affidavit not stale, reasoning guns are durable/valuable and Jacoby’s prior felony conviction made it unlikely he could obtain another firearm.
- The Supreme Court majority found a Fourth Amendment violation as to the search warrant but deemed the error harmless; Justice Mundy concurred in result but disagreed on Part V.
- Justice Mundy (joined by Justice Baer) would hold the affidavit established probable cause that the murder weapon would be at Jacoby’s home and that the 15‑month delay did not render information stale.
Issues
| Issue | Jacoby's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant lacked probable cause to search Jacoby’s residence | Affidavit was stale after 15 months; no fair probability weapon remained at residence | Information and crime nature supported inference weapon would remain at home; durable items and felony status increase likelihood | Justice Mundy: Probable cause existed; affidavit not stale |
| Whether the staleness doctrine defeats warrant based on passage of time | Passage of 15 months renders underlying information too old to support a warrant | Age alone is not dispositive; consider nature of crime and type of evidence | Justice Mundy: Age not dispositive; guns’ durability and circumstances prevent staleness |
| Whether judges may infer residence likely holds instrumentalities of crime | Affidavit lacked recent evidence to support such an inference | Issuing judge may use common sense and law‑enforcement opinion to infer residence is likely place to hide instruments | Justice Mundy: Common‑sense inference permitted; magistrate could infer weapon likely at residence |
| Whether harmless‑error analysis is necessary if warrant valid | N/A (Jacoby argued suppression) | If warrant valid, suppression and harmless‑error analysis unnecessary | Justice Mundy: No need for harmless‑error analysis because warrant valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (magistrates may draw common‑sense inferences that instrumentalities are kept at residence)
- United States v. Green, 634 F.2d 222 (5th Cir.) (residence is convenient place to hide instruments and fruits of crime)
- United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 1999) (magistrate may rely on common sense and affiant’s law‑enforcement opinion about where evidence is kept)
- United States v. Angulo‑Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1986) (magistrate entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely kept)
- Commonwealth v. Leed, 142 A.3d 20 (Pa. Super. 2016) (age of information is a factor in probable cause; assess crime nature and evidence type)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 323 A.2d 879 (Pa. Super. 1974) (weapons kept for homicide may not be quickly disposed of)
- Commonwealth v. Novak, 335 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. 1975) (staleness where narcotics held for sale are likely quickly disposed of)