In Re: Order Amending Rules 203 and 513 of the PA Rules of Criminal Procedure
496 Criminal Procedural Rules Docket
| Pa. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Pennsylvania Rules (Rule 203 for search warrants; Rule 513 for arrest warrants) were amended to address use of advanced communication technology when submitting and issuing warrants and affidavits.
- Both rules require probable cause supported by one or more affidavits sworn to the issuing authority, whether in person or via advanced communication technology.
- When advanced communication technology is used, the affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority immediately prior to submission, and the issuing authority must verify the affiant’s identity and administer an oath (audio-visual communication or other verification methods may be required).
- Only the written affidavits may be considered to establish probable cause at issuance and on subsequent suppression/return hearings; oral evidence outside the affidavits is excluded.
- Rule 513 adds a procedure allowing the affiant or the Commonwealth to request a limited delay (up to 72 hours, with an optional initial administrative delay up to 24 hours) in public inspection and dissemination of arrest-warrant information upon a finding of good cause to protect safety, prevent flight, or preserve investigation integrity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether advanced communication technology may be used to submit and issue search/arrest warrants | Commonwealth: permits efficient remote issuance when technology is available and identity/oath procedures are followed | Defense/Public: remote issuance risks verification problems and lessens in-person accountability | Held: Permitted in issuing authority’s discretion; safeguards (identity verification, oath) required |
| Whether probable cause may be established by evidence outside the affidavits | Commonwealth: affidavit(s) should suffice; additional oral evidence not necessary | Defense/Public: courts should be able to consider other evidence presented to verify probable cause | Held: Issuing authority may not consider evidence outside the sworn affidavits; only affidavits are admissible to establish probable cause at hearings |
| What verification/oath procedures are required when using remote technology | Commonwealth: require personal communication immediately before submission, identity verification, and orally administered oath (audio-visual preferred) | Defense/Public: require in-person presence to ensure reliability | Held: Affiant must personally communicate (in person, telephone, or device allowing simultaneous audio-visual communication); issuing authority must verify identity and administer oath; may require audio-visual or in-person if identity is in doubt |
| Whether arrest-warrant information may be withheld from public inspection prior to execution | Commonwealth: limited, expedited delay protects safety and investigation integrity | Defense/Public: public access presumption; delay risks secrecy and reduced transparency | Held: On showing good cause, issuing authority may delay inspection/dissemination up to 72 hours (plus up to 24-hour administrative lead-in) or until execution; criteria and limits specified |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crawley, 223 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 1966) (procedural precedent regarding warrant issuance)
- Commonwealth v. Milliken, 300 A.2d 78 (Pa. 1973) (discussing affidavit requirements for warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Glass, 754 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2000) (definition and discussion of anticipatory search warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 369 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1976) (probable cause requirement for arrest warrants)