Case Title: Commonwealth v. Leed, E. - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 645 MAL 2016

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2016-12-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. ERIC JAY LEED, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 645 MAL 2016 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court 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 [c]ourt considered information beyond the affidavit’s four corners in direct conflict with the plain language of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 203? 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? [645 MAL 2016] - 2 (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?