Commonwealth v. Leed, E., Aplt.
186 A.3d 405
Pa.2018Background
- Detective Lombardo sought a warrant to search Unit 503 at Lanco Mini Storage after confidential informants (CI#1 in Sept. 2012 and CI#2 in Feb. 2014), a private citizen tip, facility manager confirmation (manager said Leed rented since Aug. 2013 and last accessed unit Mar. 20, 2014), and a K9 sweep that alerted on the unit.
- The affidavit presented to the magistrate was sworn and submitted on March 21, 2014; the magistrate issued the warrant the same day and police recovered contraband and cash from the unit.
- Paragraph 10 of the affidavit mistakenly stated the K9 sweep occurred on March 21, 2013 (one year earlier), creating an apparent staleness problem on the face of the affidavit.
- At the suppression hearing, Detective Lombardo testified the date was a drafting error and the sweep was actually March 21, 2014; the trial court said it could not consider extrinsic testimony under Pa.R.Crim.P. 203(D) but nonetheless read the affidavit in context and inferred a mistake, denying suppression.
- The Superior Court affirmed, applying a commonsense, totality-of-the-circumstances reading to conclude paragraph 10 was an inadvertent error and the affidavit was not stale; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Leed's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an apparent erroneous date in affidavit (Mar. 21, 2013) rendered the affidavit stale and invalidated probable cause | The facial date makes the key K9 alert stale; courts may not correct or consider extrinsic facts post‑hoc under Rule 203(D); correction invites arbitrary after-the-fact alterations | Affidavit must be read commonsensically and in totality; surrounding chronological facts show the date was an obvious drafting error and eliminate any reasonable staleness concern | Where the affidavit, read as a whole, provides internal, specific, chronological indicia showing a material date is a clear inadvertent error and removes any reasonable possibility of stale or wrong-site search, the error does not void probable cause; warrant upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances and commonsense review of affidavits; avoid hyper-technical invalidation)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 858 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2004) (warrant upheld despite incorrect address where other descriptors eliminated risk of wrong-site search)
- Greenstreet v. State, 898 A.2d 961 (Md. 2006) (affidavit invalid where single date was stale and no internal indicia to infer a typographical error)
- United States v. Crumpton, 824 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2016) (incorrect address does not invalidate warrant when other specifics remove risk of searching wrong location)
- United States v. Holley, [citation="638 F. App'x 93"] (2d Cir. 2016) (technical errors in warrants may be excused where detailed descriptors preclude actual error)