Case ID: a3d_164/html/0476-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Eric Jay LEED, Petitioner
    No. 645 MAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Dec. 28, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it upheld the lower court’s determination that the issuing authority in [Petitioner’s] case had a substantial basis to find that probable cause existed within the four corners of a search warrant’s affidavit that was facially incapable of establishing probable cause? Specifically, did the Superior Court err when:
a. The [cjourt considered information beyond the affidavit’s four corners in direct conflict with the plain language of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 20.3? and/or
b. The Court found there was no meaningful legal distinction between a reviewing court’s probable cause determination when an affidavit contains ambiguities or omissions requiring clarification, as opposed to when an affidavit contains explicit sworn-to facts requiring modification to substantiate a finding of probable cause?
(2) Did the Superior Court’s determinations below grant lower courts with arbitrary judicial discretion to fashion a finding of probable cause when the affidavit presented to the issuing authority does not, on its face, contain facts sufficient to establish probable cause?