Title: COMMONWEALTH V. DAVID M. TORRES A/K/A MICHAEL WILLIAMS, APLT.; ; J-117A-1999; COMMONWEALTH V. ELIJAH WILLIAMS A/K/A BOB TORRES, APLT.; 67 WAP 1999; J-117B-1999 (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-117A&B-1999] THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. DAVID M. TORRES A/K/A MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 10 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court entered on June 12, 1998, at No. 1330PGH97 reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, entered on June 20, 1997 at No. CC9603250. 714 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. 1998) ARGUED: September 14, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. ELIJAH WILLIAMS a/k/a BOB TORRES, Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 67 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court entered on November 23, 1998, at No. 115PGH98 reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, entered on January 5, 1998, at CC No. 9602993 and remanding the matter. ARGUED: September 14, 1999 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: JANUARY 18, 2001 Regarding the resolution by the majority of the appeal of Elijah Williams a/k/a/ Bob Torres (Williams), I concur. My dissent is with the majority’s disposition in the appeal of David M. Torres a/k/a Michael Williams (Torres). I would have affirmed the Superior Court’s conclusion that the search warrant affidavit demonstrated [J-117A&B-1999] - 2 probable cause to search Torres’ apartment. See Commonwealth v. Torres, 714 A.2d 416, 420-421 (Pa. Super. 1998). I write separately because I believe that the factual details recited in the affidavit, and the corroboration of those details by the police, sufficiently established the reliability of the unnamed witnesses. Because the affidavit itself illustrated the trustworthiness of the witnesses, there is no need to presume their credibility. Accordingly, the issue of whether an unnamed witness is entitled to a presumption of reliability is best left for another day.