Commonwealth v. Rapak
138 A.3d 666
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Police obtained a search warrant for 1045 Schuylkill Road and an adjoining lot after a confidential informant reported marijuana plants at that location.
- Officer Smith observed ~12 marijuana plants on the boundary between Rapak’s property and adjoining Sensient Colors property; plants appeared tended with traps and a decoy coyote.
- The plants were about 15 yards from a dirt road that provided access only from the rear of Rapak’s property and ~100 yards from Rapak’s house, visible from the plot.
- Affiants (state trooper and township officer) recited training/experience that growers often keep processed marijuana, chemicals, potting soil, and literature in residences.
- A warrant issued; execution allegedly recovered 123 plants and contraband from the house. Rapak moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause.
- The suppression court granted the motion; the Commonwealth appealed. The Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to search the property and house.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Rapak) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit supported probable cause to search Rapak’s property and house | Observations of tended marijuana near a dirt road that only leads to Rapak’s property, proximity to the house, and officers’ training provided a fair probability contraband/evidence would be on the premises | Affidavit contained only proximity and an old arrest; no direct link to Rapak; speculation that someone from adjoining property could be tending plants | Reversed suppression: magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude a fair probability contraband/evidence would be found at the property and house |
| Whether reviewing court should require elimination of other possibilities (e.g., Sensient employee tending plants) | Defer to magistrate; police need not rule out all alternatives or conduct surveillance before obtaining warrant | Argued the affidavit failed to exclude reasonably likely alternative explanations and was speculative | Held magistrate need not rule out all alternatives; affidavit met the less rigorous probable-cause standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1985) (adoption of Gates standard in Pennsylvania)
- Commonwealth v. Ryerson, 817 A.2d 510 (Pa. Super. 2003) (magistrate limited to four-corners of affidavit; defer to magistrate’s probable-cause finding)
- Commonwealth v. Gannon, 454 A.2d 561 (Pa. Super. 1982) (focus is on whether contraband is likely located on the property, not on suspect’s individual culpability)
- Commonwealth v. Huntington, 924 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2007) (practical, common-sense determination and deference to magistrate)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (reviewing court asks whether issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed)