Commonwealth v. Melilli

Appellant, Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. Melilli, Appellee. MELILLI, C. John a/k/a John Appellant, Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. DeSTEFANO, Appellee. Nicholas Appellant, Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. DORANZO, Appellee. Shirley Appellant, Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. Devlin, Appellee. DEVLIN, Thomas John T. a/k/a John Appellant, Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. Mastro, Appellee. MASTRO, Richard D. a/k/a Richard Appellant, Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH v. Doranzo, Appellee. DORAZIO, M. a/k/a Samuel Appellant, Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH Perri, Appellee. PERRI, Frank R. a/k/a Frank Appellant, Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH Jr., PISELLI, Appellee. Louis T. Pennsylvania. Superior Court 30, 1986. May Argued 29, 1987. Filed Jan. 10, 1987. April Denied

Reargument Order Vacated April 9, 1987. June Reinstated Totoki, Attorney, Philadelphia, District Rona S. Assistant Commonwealth, appellant. for

F. Jr., Emmett Fitzpatrick, Philadelphia, for appellees. WIEAND, Before BECK JOHNSON, JJ. WIEAND, Judge:

Presently before the for Court review this consolidated appeal are orders the trial court suppressing evidence obtained by the Commonwealth via pen registers and tele- phone intercepts, as well as physical evidence subsequently seized pursuant to warrant. The trial court’s suppression orders were based the absence aof neutral determina- tion cause existed for the use reg- isters.

In December, 1982, on the basis of information which had been provided by informants, confidential the Common- began wealth an investigation illegal into gambling opera- tions in Philadelphia. In January, Pennsylvania State Troopers received information from a confidential infor- mant an illegal about numbers operation that was being conducted in Philadelphia through telephone (215) number 271-7078. Records Bell Telephone maintained Company of Pennsylvania revealed that this number had been as- signed defendant, to the Street, Richard at Mastro, Vollmer in Philadelphia. A (DNR) dialed number recorder installed telephone on this an pursuant order entered on January Conroy Honorable Michael J. Municipal Court of Philadelphia.1 In subsequent orders entered on March February May Judge Conroy authorized the continued use DNR Mas- tro’s telephone thirty periods. for additional day pen type register telephone 1. A a DNR is to attaches a line particular telephone and records the on numbers dialed that and date, time, length telephone monitors the and of time the receiver is not, however, any off the hook. It does monitor contents of origin any incoming cоmmunication or record the See: calls. 5702; 259, 253, Beauford, Pa.Super. Pa.C.S. Commonwealth v. § 783, dismissed, 319, (1984), appeal 475 A.2d Pa. installed, judicial At the time this that DNR authorization However, required registers. pen was not for the installation of Bell Telephone Company required present to law enforcement officials a installing registers. pen court order before officers received enforcement February, law In informant a second confidential from information further being by conducted bookmaking was sports illegal that (215) 336- telephone at number “Nick” referred to as man Telephone Cоmpany Bell by maintained Records 8460. defend- had been subscribed this number that showed in Philadel- DeStefano, Juniper at 2438 Street ant, Nicholas officers law enforcement February On phia. the instal- authorizing Judge Conroy from order an obtained for a telephone register on DeStefano’s pen of a lation for was extended This authorization thirty days. period dated March by orders day periods thirty additional 4, 1983. 14, May April register installed through pen obtained

Information calls telephone pattern telephone disclosed on Mastro’s telephone and to another telephone made from Mastro’s forwarding number telephone through call transferred records Company’s revealed Telephone Bell (215)389-8903. Jerry DiJo- had subscribed number been this Philadelphia. Street located at South Clarion seph,2 installation authorized the Conroy Judge March On thirty telephone. Additional DiJoseph’s on pen register of a 4,May on 30 and March extensions were authorized day 1983. reg- through obtained these information

Based informants additional confidential through isters and investigation and sur- independent police corroborated officials authorization veillance, law enforcement obtained of the Superior Hoffman Sydney J. from Honorable of Messrs. telephones on the wiretaps to install Court wiretaps were Mastro, DiJoseph. These DeStefano and telephone April Interception 1983. installed on telephones termi- on and DeStefano’s calls made Mastro’s DiJoseph’s tele- Interception of 1983. April nated 4, 1983. May continued until conversations phone any basis DiJoseph of the cases that form the was not a defendant 2. appeal. of this investigation The continued, and on 9, 1983, May law enforcement officials obtained search warrants for twenty- locations, three including the residences of each of the eight defendants. to warrants, Pursuant these the seized physical evidence corrupt organizations illegal gam- bling. eight defendants were arrested on 8, December 1983, were charged with conspiracy, corrupt organiza- tions and related offenses. The cases were consolidated on August 1, 1984.

All of the defendants filed pre-trial motions to suppress the evidence which had been obtained pursuant pen registers and as wiretaps, well as the physical evidence which been pursuant had seized to thе search warrants. A hearing and, 17, was held on September 1984, the suppres- sion suppressed court the evidence had been obtained pursuant ‍​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‍to the pen register. Mastro A regarding decision the remainder of the sought evidence be suppressed was delayed until briefs could be submitted the parties. On suppression October court ordered that this evidence remaining suppressed. 18, also be April 1985, On filed suppression findings court formal of fact and conclusions law.

In 327 Pa.Super. 253, Commonwealth Beauford, (1984), dismissed, appeal Pa. (1985), 496 A.2d 1143 of this panel Court held that Pennsylvania prohib Article section 8 of the Constitution ited the installation and use of pen registers without a warrant issued cause. The rejected Court reasoning Supreme of the States United Court Smith 61 L.Ed.2d 220 Maryland, U.S. S.Ct. (1979), held use pen register which had earlier that the of a search was not a under Fourth Amendment States. The Commonwealth Constitution United appeal suppression contends in instant court requirement applied erred it when Beauford which had been retroactively cause instant because these had registers used case prior to the date on been installed which Commonwealth v. constrained to decided. We are Beauford, supra, prior overrules appellate an decision disagree. “[W]here the decision principle, a unless new law and announces the ruling prospective only, to be declares specifically to cases where applied retroactively new rule is to be all stages at properly preserved in question issue been] [has direct including any appeal.” to up adjudication of 233, 146, 228, Pa. 469 A.2d Cabeza, 503 v. Commonwealth its to ruling did not declare The court (1983). 148 Beauford the issue of judice, in the case sub only; and prospective be for preserved properly cause has been of probable lack Therefore, rule is stages. all review at Beauford facts the instant case. to the applicable only those also contends that The Commonwealth registers were telephones pen upon whose defendants challenge evidence obtained standing installed have However, in registers. Commonwealth from the which had suppressed this evidence Court Beauford, supra, as to each of through pen registers use of obtained been not had despite fact that all defendants six defendants In telephones. rejeсt on their pen register had a installed in Supreme States Court ing the decision the United do not the Court said: v. Maryland, supra, Smith “[W]e expect he calls person that a and the say hesitate to caller are they fact that privacy are to as much entitled to each other.” say talking they one another as what 266, Pa.Super. at supra 327 Commonwealth v. Beauford, added). this we conclude (emphasis From 475 A.2d at 789 standing have all in the instant case that defendants through challenge the evidence obtained Mastro, Messrs. telephones installed which were DiJoseph. DeStefano and this cаuse was considered matter 374, 498 Pa.Super. Doty, 345

Court Commonwealth (1985). There said: we cause determining for whether The standard is the same as pen register] a or a wiretap existed [for for that cause search warrants. See: used to determine United, Talbert, States v. 464, 706 F.2d (4th Cir.1983); United v. Falcone, States 478, (3d 505 F.2d Cir.1974), denied, cert. U.S. 95 S.Ct. 43 L.Ed.2d 432 (1975). The facts contained for a affidavit search warrant must be such an independent, that issuing au thority, exercising caution, reasonable can conclude that sought the items are connected with criminal activity and they will be found in the place to be searched. Council, Commоnwealth v. Pa. 421 A.2d (1980); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 300 Pa.Super. 446 A.2d Similarly, in an for application a wiretap pen register], the Common [or wealth must establish probable (1) cause to believe that person or is has about to commit one of the offenses statute, (2) enumerated in the that communications [or relating to transmitted, that offense will be information] (3) and such that communications will be [or information] on the intercepted under surveillance. See: Unit facility Armocida, ed v. States (3d Cir.), F.2d cert. 35 [515 nom., States, denied sub Conti v. United 423 U.S. (1975) 96 S.Ct. 46 L.Ed.2d 84 ].

Id., 397-398, Pa.Superior Ct. at 882. A.2d at applications must register comply with Pa.R.

“[P]en [also] 2003(a) (b), rеquire Crim.P. and that evidence estab- lishing probable appear cause for issuance of a warrant writing the four of the within corners affidavits submitted to issuing authority ‘supported by ... oath or [and be] ” Common- affirmation subscribed to affiant.’ wealth Beauford, supra Pa.Super. at 269 n. falling A.2d at n. 7. As all not within one with searches exceptions requirement, of the warrant a recognized exists must made a finding probable that cause be pen neutral a can judicial authority register before be installed. determination, judicial albeit magistrate

The must make a nontechnical, judgment common sense as whеth- ... police- is not for a probable enough er cause exists. It to the to the magistrate prior man to an affidavit present on the consider judiciary may affidavit search which after the hindsight ‍​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‍complete probable of cause with issue must magistrate search. The completed have their police to validate of cause finding probable make a actually Moreover, must do it he he issues it. before warrant order. written 123-124, 477 Pa. Chandler,

Commonwealth (1984) added). (emphasis authorizing installa case, instant the orders In the findings pen upon of not based registers and use were tion for applications At the time when the cause. probable made, and registers both the affiants were pen the use that a war under the Conroy operating were belief Judge necessary not condi probable cause was rant based reason register. of a It was for this pen for the use tion findings issuing no orders Conroy made before Judge that question. of the installation authorizing con Judge Conroy not ever suggest do The orders existed. cause sidered whether event, the accompany any and in affidavits Moreover were insufficient show register ing pen applications support cause. affidavits the existence registers vague contained and of the Mastro DeStefano reliability conclusory averments informants; received from the confidential tips had been inconclu information to corroborate the attempts of the installation of The affidavit in sive. information entirely upon register based DiJoseph pen Absent this register. through the Mastro pen obtained proba showing information, of facts was void affidavit ble cause. obtaining in occurred

Despite these errors which us to urges prosecution’s evidence, the Commonwealth in Court reasoning Supreme set forth adopt 3405, 82 Leon, v. 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. United States subject (1984), is not L.Ed.2d 677 and hold that evidence in rea- if acted law enforcement officials have suppression aby sonable, good faith reliance authorization issued 438 is found to magistrate

neutral but which later be defective probable cause. unsupported by because Leon, the United supra, In v. States United States purposes exclusionary examined the Supreme Court that: rule and determined exclusionary rule necessar- purpose

“The deterrent willful, or at engaged that the have ily assumes has deprived conduct which negligent, least very to admit evidence By refusing right. defendant some conduct, hope the courts as a result of such gained officers, in their or investigating particular instill those of care toward greater degree counterparts, future the official conduct was Where rights of an accused. however, faith, the deterrence complete good pursued force.” much of its rationale loses 696, quoting at 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d 919, 104 at Id. at S.Ct. 433, 447, 94 S.Ct. Tucker, 417 U.S. v. Michigan concluded, Court Supreme 41 L.Ed.2d 194 pursuant of evidence obtained therefore, that “suppression case-by-case basis on a only ordered to a warrant should be will exclusion cases in those unusual only Id. 468 U.S. exclusionary rule.” purposes further the (footnote at 695 3419, 82 L.Ed.2d at 104 at S.Ct. Crittenden, 476 v. omitted). State parte See also: Ex 58, 688 Anderson, Ark. 286 (Ala.1985); 632 v. So.2d State N.E.2d 197 State, 495 v. (1985); S.W.2d 947 Stabenow (La.App. Shannon, 286 472 So.2d v. (Ind.App.1986); State (Mo.1985); State 420 701 S.W.2d 1985); v. Sweeney, State (1986); v. 789 State Welch, 342 S.E.2d v. 316 N.C. (1986); 1236 N.E.2d 251, 490 22 Wilmoth, Ohio St.3d 637 219, 321 S.E.2d Commonwealth, 228 Va. McCary v. cert. (Wyo.1984), State, P.2d 253 ; v. (1984) Patterson 1020, 471 U.S. nom., Wyoming, Spoon sub denied People (1985). But see: L.Ed.2d S.Ct. N.E.2d 630, 488 N.Y.S.2d N.Y.2d Bigelow, (Tex.App.1986). State, 704 S.W.2d (1985) ; Polk v. the instal obtained the evidence Suppression further case cannot in the instant lation of At the time when purposes exclusionary of the rule. installed, lаw told pen registers existing explicitly were registers did pen enforcement officials that the use of law of the a Pursuant to the Constitution not constitute search. interpretation, States, according Supreme to Court United showing of require prior the use of did not a Accord- supra. probable Maryland, cause. See: Smith v. therefore, effect, in law enforcement ing to the law then or a court order agencies required were not obtain register. in make use of a pen warrant order to install and Nevertheless, comply telephone company in order to with in further than requirements, police the instant case went required magistrate from a neutral requested law registers. of authorizing pen an order installation law, issued magistrate, pursuant existing who also acted a registers of without authorizing pen an order the use that the showing probable cause. It was not until later Court, of state constitutional Superior applying principles a law, registers prior without pen outlawed the use of clear, therefore, that showing cause. It seems authorities was the use of enforcement registers by law faith, statutory in in accordance with accomplished gоod and con- authority Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Supreme by sistently procedure explicitly approved with obtained suppress of the To evidence Court United States. any not further under these circumstances would rule. exclusionary purposes intended to be served of the use of evidence Indeed, deprive Commonwealth existing then in accordance with good faith and obtained land, in the would highest court law as determined exclusionary rule purposes fail only not to serve interest law public tend to defeat a substantial but would Therefore, agree with the Common- enforcement.3 we Leon, facially supra, had obtained 3. In United States magistrate based facts found valid search warrant from magistrate probable cause. Some of the evidence seized to constitute pursuant suppressed to the warrant was later when the district court application of the warrant determined that the affidavit had been insufficient to establish cause. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this determination. On further wealth that an exception to the exclusionary rule must be created which has application narrowly to situations which law enforcement officials (1) have acted in good faith; (2) in reasonable reliance upon a procedure expressly sanc- tioned by existing judicial decisions; (3) pursuant authorization obtained from a magistrate. neutral Because those prerequisites have been met in case,'we the instant reverse the orders suppressing evidence obtained use of the pen registers.

We also reverse the order suppressing evidence ob- tained through the telephone intercepts and the physical evidence pursuant seized to the search warrants. The suppression court’s order was based its conclusion that absent the pen register evidence, the affidavits in support of the wiretap applications and search warrants However, were insufficient to probable establish cause. light of our holding that the evidence should register not have been suppressed, it was to discount unnecessary that evidence determining probable when the existence of cause. case, “good

Even without a faith” in this exception we would part nonetheless be constrained to reverse that the order suppressing wiretaps evidence оbtained via install telephones ed on the of Mastro and Without DeStefano. through evidence obtained the use of on their phones, the affidavits of the Mastro and DeStefa intercepts no were nevertheless sufficient to confirm de probable existence of cause. Both affidavits contained enforce provided tailed information which had been to law This information ment officials confidential informants. to conclude permit person sufficient to a reasonable gambling had engaged illegal that Mastro and DeStefano reversed, holding Supreme that appeal, the Court of the United States erroneous, although magistrate’s issuance of the warrant had been magistrate’s determination "the officers’ reliance on reasonable, applica- objectively cause been] [therefore] [had inappropriate.” Unit- extreme sanction of exclusion [was] tion of the Leon, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. at supra 468 U.S. at ed States v. case, distinguishable although from at 701. facts in the instant The Leon, today. compelling of the result we reach those in are even more using telephones continuing to do so and were activities question only residences. respective at their located reliability was whether these affidavits concerning con-We established. sufficiently had been tips informants’ estab- had been the informants reliability of that the clude lished. informant from an unnamed 'tip’

“It is well settled provided cause for form the basis can properly credibility.” informant’s evidence adequate there is A.2d Miller, Pa.Super. Commonwealth Carlisle, 348 (1984). Commonwealth 498, 501 See: Pa.Super. affidavit, probable the existence of cause

In the Mastro had provided by information which been upon based was Two of the informants. informants had three confidential for an illegal gambling writers numbers being admitted placеd had they that bets regularly stated They operation. which number traced to telephone the dialing by gambling operation in the pro- Their involvement Mastro. knowledge. for Moreover, strong basis a them with vided adequately was shown reliability by informant’s first law provided enforcement previously he had the fact that to be reliable ‍​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‍proved which and information officials with Carlisle, supra; v. Com- Commonwealth accurate. See: 146, 151-152, 457 Pa.Super. A.2d White, 311 v. monwealth regard is true with third (1983). The same 539 did not affidavit re- Although informant. confidential provided previously had the second informant cite this infor- information, рrovided the information reliable from obtained was corroborated the information mant of consider- Thus, worthy other two informants. it was Jones, ation. See: Commonwealth 506 Pa. v. (1984).

A.2d Finally importantly, and most penal statements of the informants had their against been and, therefore, interests could be found belief. worthy See: Stickle, 89, 97-98, Commonwealth v. Pa. (1979); 961-962 Pa.Su- v. Neidig, Commonwealth per. (1985); 489 A.2d 923-924 Common- Yacoubian, 413, 423-424, 489 A.2d Pa.Super. wealth v. 228, support affidavit in DeStefano wire-

Similarly, upon pro- information application primarily was based tap the infor- only informant. Not by a confidential vided his role as gambling оperation through in the mant involved writer, establishing strong thereby and bettor numbers enforce- provided he had also law knowledge, for but basis in the had past which ment officials with information there- credibility, reliability His to be reliable. proved See: Commonwealth fore, adequately established. were White, supra. Carlisle, Commonwealth supra; to the evidence respect be said with The same cannot wiretap installed the use of through obtained this affidavit DiJoseph’s telephone. Jerry exclusively upon evidence ob- relied wiretap application had installed been pеn register through tained evidence, the this Without telephone. Mastro’s Richard insufficient to establish been affidavit would have good recognize Thus, not constrained we cause. were rule, ob- the evidence exclusionary exception faith deemed have to be wiretap would this last through tained cause. to show insufficient using pen obtained evidence suppressing The orders evidence physical as as well wiretaps registers The case are reversed. to search warrants pursuant seized is not Jurisdiction proceedings. further remanded for is retained. dissenting opinion.

BECK, J., files a dissenting: BECK, Judge, introduction majority’s the from dissent respectfully

I interpretation on its based exception good-faith a broad 3405, 82 897, 104 S.Ct. Leon, 468 U.S. v. States United applica- retroactive the (1984). I concur with L.Ed.2d 677 253, 475 Pa.Super. 327 Beauford, v. tion of Commonwealth

443 319, dismissed, 508 Pa. 496 (1984), appeal A.2d 783 (1985). 1143 Exception

I. Good-Faith of a I endorse the introduction Although principle juris- exception Pennsylvania into good-faith Leon narrow inappropriate case is an vehicle I find the instant prudence, which to do it. by enunciated recently has been good-faith exception Leon, Supreme

the United States Court United States (1984) 82 L.Ed.2d 677 U.S. S.Ct. Sheppard, Massachusetts v. U.S. S.Ct. (1984). In applied good Leon the Court the L.Ed.2d to admit evidence exception pursuant faith discovered to a supported by probable not cause on warrant the search police the who conducted the search that had rea- ground of the the issuance warrant relied on neutral sonably Court concluded In that Sheppard, magistrate. suppression not require does evi- rule exclusionary acting officials in objec- enforcement lawby seized dence technically on a defective war- reliance tively reasonable cases, issuing authority made an those rant. In both standards of established assessment based objective support warrant. cause to there was whether cause did not In it determined hindsight was cause although probable Leon, support the warrant the warrant was Sheppard, did the warrant particularity with specify it failed to defective because uncovering. at search was aimed kind of items that a pen placing In the case the search involved judice sub Under register telephone appellant. on the install a time, legally could applicable law at the re- on their own initiativе. No warrant pen register Mary- to the installation. quired precondition as Smith land, 442 U.S. S.Ct. 61 L.Ed.2d Therefore, no mandated standard existed issuing could assess whether to the instal- authority permit register. lation of the In the case judice sub issuing issued the authority warrant as an accomodation to telephone company company

the because the refused the pen register judicial approval. install without issuing It the in the case sub appears authority rubber-stamped the without judice request by police the I find bringing independent judgment. to bear its would in the facts good-faith exception inapplicable the because for an not it. standards this сase do Without the issuing authority assessment the independent of a search police, object the actions pre-search perhaps and overzea- unsupervised, vulnerable becomes good if performed even lous, activity enforcement law authori- issuing the neutral exists that safeguard No faith. No police. the presented by the information assessed ty reviewing court can exists record pre-search ap- the authorization was on which grounds the assess proved. case, majority’s in this the required no warrant

Since good-faith approving close dangerously leads opinion searches. for warrantless exception creates a good- doctrine narrow Sheppard Leon issuing authority the has assessed where exception, faith To extend the doctrine information. to situa- presearch the is a issuing authority rubber or to stamp where tions is necessary grant no warrant would where situations In determining discretion. too broad whether police authorization, faith in good relying on the acted police reviewing court would have to on after-the-fact rely police. fact, police After documentation In faith. good have assemble a case in favor of would cases, oppor- the police pre-search would not most have a war- tunity to document without good faith searches most are conducted rant because warrantless searches search-and- emergency Also, in where situations. situations totally rely unclear, seizure doctrine could is exception. their interpretation a good-faith to support to warrantless exception Extension of the good-faith established to erode seriously searches begin would majority’s I fear law and body of search seizure opinion to that end. leads

II. Retroactivity I Although agree that the rule in ‍​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‍Commonwealth v. 327 Beauford, Pa.Super. 253, (1984), 475 A.2d 783 appeal dismissed, 508 Pa. (1985), A.2d 1143 retroactive, is I do agree not with the majority’s analysis of the issue of The retroactivity. majority bases its analysis solely on Cabeza, Commonwealth v. 503 Pa. 469 A.2d 146 (1983). requires Cabeza that all in decisions criminal cases be retroactive absent a specific in statement the opinion rendering it prospective only. As declines to Beauford determine its own retroactivity, the Cabeza rule would automatically render it retroactive. Although the Cabeza rule establishes a strong presumption of retroactivity, it should not be the end of retroactivity analysis. The rule is too broad. Our Supreme begun Court has to limit its breadth. Commonwealth v. Gillespie, Pa. (1986). Rather than adopting a standard of

analysis, the rule is conclusory. In providing clear direction as applicable law, hampers Cabeza the court’s discretion and deprives the court from making equitable considera- tions. It sacrifices fairness to certainty.

The preferable standard was recently enunciated by Jus- tice Papadakos in his concurrence in Commonwealth v. Harpеr, 512 Pa. A.2d 319 Justice Papada- kos refers to present Cabeza as our rule of retroactivity Yet, criminal cases. realizing that Cabeza is not a tool for analysis, he reiterates the Stovall standard:

The criteria to be employed determining whether a newly adopted rule should be applied retroactively are: “(a) the purpose to be served by the standards, (b) new the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on standards, the old (c) the effect on the administra- tion of justice of a application retroactive of the new standards.” Denno, Stоvall v. 293, 297, U.S. [388 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967)].

Harper, 512 Pa. at 516 A.2d at 323 (Papadakos, J. concurring).

Pursuant to Harper Stovall, I review the countervail- ing considerations. purpose of the new rule requiring safeguard for use of is

search warrants right against constitutional unreasonable important state searches. The reliance law enforcement authorities on standard was established previous is from the facts in the case Maryland, Smith clear sub decided, enforcement Before law judice. Beauford court registers without authorization. officials used However, it not to assess extent this possible is Therefore, impact we cannot determine reliance. new оr standard requirement application retroactive retroac- Clearly, justice. will have the administration of evidence in some cases. suppression cause the tivity will begins criminal decisional law retroactivity analysis Since retroactivity favor strong presumption with a dimen- rule of constitutional of the new is purpose since retroactive rule should have sion, agree I that the Beauford application. princi- is

Although proper apply I find it Beauford is exception good-faith I that the conclude ple retroactively, therefore, would, affirm. I inapplicable. A.2d 1115 COLEMAN, Appellant,

Shirley A. COLEMAN, Appellee. Harrison W. COLEMAN, Appellant, Shirley A. COLEMAN, Appellee.

Harrison W. Pennsylvania. Superior ‍​​​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‍Court Argued April 1986. 16, 1987.

Filed March

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Melilli

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jun 9, 1987

Citation: 522 A.2d 1107

Docket Number: 3147-3162

Court Abbreviation: Pa.