Commonwealth v. Wallace, 42 A.3d 1040

Police sought an anticipatory warrant for Wallace's home based on a CI's tip and plan for a controlled cocaine purchase at 635 Morris St.
Affidavit tied Wallace to identity, address, phone numbers, and vehicle; provided past drug-related tip leading to seizures to support reliability.
Warrant issued the same day as the controlled buy; informant conducted the buy, yielding two bags of cocaine and buy money recovered during the search.
Trial court suppressed, deeming lack of corroboration and nexus between the home and drug activity; Superior Court reversed, upholding probable cause.
Commonwealth granted discretionary appeal; the issue is whether the anticipatory warrant had sufficient probable cause under Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania Constitution.
Court ultimately held the warrant lacked the required probable cause; suppression order reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the affidavit establish probable cause for the anticipatory warrant?	Wallace: no; affidavit lacks nexus and corroboration of informant's basis of knowledge.	Commonwealth: totality of circumstances shows reliability, corroboration, and planned controlled buy supports probable cause.	No; probable cause lacking for anticipatory warrant.
Is the Grubbs two-prong test satisfied by the affidavit?	Wallace: triggering event not shown to be probable and no basis to expect a sale.	Commonwealth: both prongs satisfied by informant reliability, corroboration, and informant participation.	Not satisfied; warrant invalid under Grubbs.
Can police corroboration of general information bolster reliability of an informant?	Wallace: corroboration of address/phone is insufficient to prove basis of knowledge.	Commonwealth: corroboration of identity and prior successful tips supports reliability.	Insufficient to cure lack of basis of knowledge.
May anticipatory warrants issue without prior evidence of criminal activity at the home?	Wallace: no prior activity at residence; no nexus established.	Commonwealth: Grubbs allows anticipatory warrants if triggering event and later contraband are probable.	No; insufficient basis to conclude triggering event would occur at home.

Commonwealth v. Glass, 562 Pa. 187 (Pa. 2000) (adopts Gates totality of the circumstances in PA search warrants)
Commonwealth v. Coleman, 574 Pa. 261 (Pa. 2003) (outlines explicit elements for anticipatory warrants)
Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 (Pa. 1985) (adopts Gates analysis for PA Const. Article I, § 8)
Grubbs, United States v., 547 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2006) (requires two prerequisites for anticipatory warrants)
Commonwealth v. Luv, 557 Pa. 570 (Pa. 1999) (informant reliability can support probable cause with corroboration or past accuracy)
Commonwealth v. Clark, 28 A.3d 1284 (Pa. 2011) (informant reliability may be inferred from corroboration or past accurate information)