Commonwealth v. James
620 Pa. 465
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Police received citizen tip about drug activity at appellee's residence on April 11, 2007.
- Two trash pulls later recovered drug paraphernalia and marijuana/cocaine residue from appellee's garbage.
- A search warrant for appellee's residence issued on April 20, 2007 based in part on trash pull results.
- During the search, police found three guns, soft body armor, drug paraphernalia, and a small amount of marijuana; appellee admitted sole possession.
- Appellee moved to suppress, challenging the location of trash and the waiver of Fourth Amendment protections; suppression was denied at first.
- The Commonwealth sought reconsideration; trial court granted reconsideration and allowed extrinsic trash-pull testimony to determine legality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to reconsider suppression order | Commonwealth: suppression order admissible for reconsideration; not final. | Appellee: no jurisdiction beyond 30 days; order final. | Suppression order is interlocutory; 30-day limit inapplicable; trial court could reconsider. |
| Rule 203(D) and extrinsic evidence for probable cause | Commonwealth: extrinsic testimony is permissible when testing factual assertions in affidavit. | Appellee: extrinsic evidence forbidden; only four corners of affidavit may be used. | Rule 203(D) does not bar live evidence to test challenged facts; trial court properly allowed testimony; probable cause established. |
| Impact of trash-pull legality on probable cause | Commonwealth: trash pulls can support probable cause if lawfully conducted. | Appellee: legality of trash pulls must be resolved before using them for probable cause. | Trash pulls were lawfully conducted; evidence properly included in probable cause analysis; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hall, 451 Pa. 201, 302 A.2d 342 (1973) (test veracity of affidavit facts via cross-examination)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (right to challenge false statements in an affidavit; substantial showing required)
- Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259, 407 A.2d 1345 (1979) (needs live witnesses to prove veracity of statements in affidavit)
- Commonwealth v. Padilla, 923 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discusses finality of suppression orders and appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 538 Pa. 400, 648 A.2d 1172 (1994) ( Commonwealth right to appeal suppression orders; interlocutory context)