Commonwealth v. Leed
142 A.3d 20
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- On March 21, 2014 Detective Lombardo applied for and obtained a search warrant for Eric Leed’s storage unit; officers searched the unit the same evening and seized ~15 lbs marijuana, cash, bags, and a scale.
- Lombardo’s affidavit recited a sequence of events: (1) CI reports of drug sales (last identified buy in Sept. 2012), (2) a Feb. 2014 CI identification, (3) a March 2014 citizen report and manager confirmation that Leed leased and recently accessed unit #503, and (4) a K-9 sweep that produced alerts.
- Paragraph 10 of the affidavit stated the K-9 sweep occurred on March 21, 2013 (a year earlier), creating a potential staleness problem because Leed began leasing in Aug. 2013 and other reports were from 2014.
- At the suppression hearing the detective conceded the 2013 reference was a typographical error and that the sweep occurred March 21, 2014; the trial court nonetheless declined to rely on his live testimony but found the affidavit’s four corners and chronology showed the date was an obvious typo.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, and Leed was convicted after a stipulated nonjury trial; he appealed arguing the warrant was invalid because the affidavit’s explicit date could not be corrected or ignored.
Issues
| Issue | Leed's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an explicit date error in an affidavit that makes an essential event appear a year old vitiates probable cause | The affidavit’s March 21, 2013 date made the K-9 sweep stale and broke the link between alleged recent activity and contraband in the unit; a court may not "edit" sworn affidavit statements | A magistrate’s probable-cause finding should be reviewed with common sense; the chronological context shows the 2013 date is an obvious typographical error and the sweep was on March 21, 2014 | Court upheld warrant: reviewing court may consider the affidavit’s four corners to identify a typographical error and conclude the issuing authority had substantial basis for probable cause |
| Whether a reviewing court may correct or disregard an obvious typographical error in a sworn affidavit | Typographical correction impermissible because affiant swore to the affidavit and a magistrate may only rely on its explicit contents | Permissible under a common-sense, totality-of-the-circumstances analysis; Gates/Gray require practical review, not hypertechnical parsing | Court held correcting an obvious typographical error is proper; the affidavit, read as a whole, supported probable cause |
| Whether any error in the storage unit warrant tainted subsequent warrants (bank records, mother’s residence) | If the storage warrant was invalid, downstream warrants are fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed | Because the storage warrant was valid, subsequent warrants were properly issued based on evidence from it | Court rejected taint argument — no relief because initial warrant stood |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hoppert, 39 A.3d 358 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for suppression and discussion of staleness)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985) (adopts Gates’ practical, totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause determined by common-sense totality of the circumstances; avoid hypertechnical scrutiny)
- Commonwealth v. Ruey, 892 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2006) (distinguishes absence of probable cause from incomplete articulation; courts may apply common-sense inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Swint, 389 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. 1978) (warrant may be upheld despite ministerial/typographical errors)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 518 A.2d 802 (Pa. 1986) (omissions about timeframe do not necessarily negate probable cause)