*1 allowing defense, for such a purpose namely, restrain from instigating law enforcement officials crime. I find illogicаl this unwarranted. I would hold totally that in area, licensing proof administrative defense of entrapment complеte be bar to both the offense solely and the a license revocation of based the charactеr or fitness of the licensee as reflected that specific otherwise, factual situation. To hold majority does today, is not exercise in opens but also futility, policing of to the licensees abuses of officials which the defense entrapment protect against. intended to If permitted, the defense is to be it must embraced with all рolicy implications. therefore dissent. Gregory David WEISENTHAL and Kathleen
Jean Dickelman.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 17, 1986.
Reargued Nov. Mary Killinger, Chief, MacNeil Appeals Hylan, Asst. Dist. Recchuiti, Philadelphia, Francis Norris-
town, for Weisenthal. Honig, Norristown,
William J. for Dickelman. *2 NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY,
ORDER PER CURIAM:
The being evenly divided as to whether render a merits, decision on the is appeal hereby dismissed. NIX, C.J., ZAPPALA, JJ., and FLAHERTY and appeal dismiss the as having improvidently granted.
McDERMOTT, J., files a dissenting opinion. PAPADAKOS, J., files а dissenting opinion.
LARSEN, J., dissents.
McDERMOTT,Justice, dissenting.
Since the suppression judge in this case found that the
acted
probable
without
cause he
оr-
automatically
dered the exclusion of the two bales of marijuana. Our
system
jurisprudence
has labored under this reactive
application
Ohio,
rule since
Mapp v.
367
643,
1684,
(1961).
U.S.
81
S.Ct.
In United States v. 468 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 82 (1984), 1250, L.Ed.2d 677 rehearing deniеd 468 U.S. 105 52, (1984), Court, 82 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 942 Mr. per Justice White, recognized that the rule is consti- tutionally remedy, mandated stated unequivocally that “[wjhethеr the exclusionary sanction is im- appropriately posed particular case separate ... issue question whether the Fourth Amendment right party
243
seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct’.”
906,
468
3412,
Id.
U.S. at
104
аt
S.Ct.
citing Illinois v.
Gates,
213, 223,
462
2317, 2324,
U.S.
103 S.Ct.
76 L.Ed.2d
(1983).
527
The Court went on to say that recent changes
in the law “forcefully suggest that the
more
modified to
generally
permit the introduction of evi-
dence
obtained
good-faith
reasonable
belief that a
search or seizure
inwas
accord with the Fourth Amend-
Leon,
ment.”
909,
468
supra
U.S. at
3413,
at
S.Ct.
citing
Gates,
Illinois v.
Although both Leon and Sheppard involved police acting good faith reliance a upon defective warrant the analysis applied the by Court could ultimately extend to other good faith efforts of police. This approach would far be thе most reasonable since much of appears what as an inexplic- able and sometimes degrading paradox would be obviated by distinguishing between actual misconduct and the mis- takes of honest men. In this case one with balеs of poisonous and illegal contraband escapes sanction because police the acted without the requisite formal authority of the occasion. wrongs, Two usually of very unequal weight, should never equal right a tо escape when caught flagrante delictu.
In this case the most that can be said about police the thаt they jumped the gun. given the exigency situation, the where the failure of police the to act immedi- the carrying mеant that the automobile ately would have the illegal journey, contraband would have continued had little chоice. police rule is to of the purposes
One of the primary crucial in- misconduct, and one of the deter future police rule as a the effect quiries evaluating Ex- such deterrence. accomplish it will remedy is whether dangerous however, more often that proven has perience, made on perfect have been police criminals than that escape To apply killing ground. misconduct, it will not deter like the will present situаtion on depends often police work which deter conscientious scene; rea- on the of the offiсer suspicions the reasonable which, often, our lives very all too suspicions sonable a in this case Indeеd, the rule breeds apply depend. as to make profound for reason so contempt disrespect ineffectual fool. seem an the law appropriate remedy not an hold that exclusion is I would case, аnd therefore dissent the fact of this Superior affirm the Court. decision to PAPADAKOS, Justice, dissenting. Petition for Allowance
I dissent tо the dismissal had certainly The police Granted. Improvidently setting keeping public to be where right parking in public thе activities of watch on of sub- saw a transfer area. The *4 marijuana. to be reasonably believed stances which and marijuana pounds moved in and seized They mere fact that a arrest. The placed that these DEA official testified agent former customs marijua- he knew bales packaged view, opinion reduce the my does packaged na to be exercise. to a faith arresting officers bad the seizure of what represents simply This case right and They were marijuana. to be reasonably believed pounds, weighed wrong! The bales expert hardly invisible even to the passerby. casual This evidence should not have suppressed.
John W. DOYLE.
Supreme of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 1986.
Reargued Nov. Mary MacNeil Killinger, Chief, Hylan, Asst. Dist. Atkins,
Richard D. Philadelphia, for appellee. C.J., NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY,