Commonwealth v. Korn
139 A.3d 249
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Troopers conducted two controlled buys of Xanax from Aaron Murray at Apartment 201 of The Phoenix Apartments, then obtained a search warrant listing "Apt#201" (owner/occupant: Aaron Murray).
- Warrant executed Feb. 26, 2015; officers entered, encountered Murray and other occupants; a locked bedroom door at end of a hallway was announced and opened by the occupant (Korn).
- Korn asked to see the warrant; during that interaction an officer searched Korn and found Xanax on his person.
- Officers then searched Korn’s bedroom (no separate mailbox, address, or private entrance was observed; trooper did not recall a deadbolt or keyed lock) and found vacuum-sealed bags of pills and cash; further evidence recovered from a safety-deposit box rented by Korn.
- Trial court granted Korn’s suppression motion, reasoning the warrant targeted Murray and failed to particularize a distinct living unit within Apartment 201; it treated Korn’s locked bedroom as a separate living unit outside the warrant’s scope.
- Commonwealth appealed; Superior Court reversed, holding the search of Korn’s bedroom was proper because Apartment 201 was a single living unit and probable cause to search one room supported searching the entire unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Korn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant for Apt. 201 authorized search of a locked bedroom within that apartment | Warrant describing Apt. 201 was sufficiently particular; probable cause from controlled buys of Murray’s room justified searching the entire single-unit apartment | Warrant targeted Murray only; Korn’s locked bedroom was a separate living unit and outside the warrant’s scope | Reversed suppression: apartment was a single unit; probable cause to search one room permitted search of entire apartment (consistent with Waltson) |
| Whether the locked bedroom and occupant’s exclusive control made it a separate unit requiring a separate showing of probable cause | Locking the door is only momentary control and does not show a distinct living unit when no separate address/mailbox/entrance exists | Lock and the fact officers lacked knowledge of Korn’s presence show Murray had no dominion and the room was beyond warrant scope | Rejected: no evidence of separate unit (no distinct mailbox/entrance/key deadbolt recalled); Waltson allows searching entire residence when probable cause exists for one room |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1998) (where probable cause exists for contraband in a particular room of a single-unit residence, Article I, §8 does not preclude searching the entire residence)
- Commonwealth v. Carlisle, 534 A.2d 469 (Pa. 1987) (warrant particularity must be judged practically; prevent searches of other apartments lacking legal basis)
- In the Interest of Wilks, 613 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 1992) (warrant listing a floor but not apartment number upheld suppression when it authorized searches of multiple distinct apartments)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances; fair probability that evidence will be found at the place to be searched)
- Commonwealth v. Belenky, 777 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 2001) (warrant particularity and practical, common-sense interpretation required)