Case Name: Commonwealth v. Gianelli et al., Appellants
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1974-06-21
Citations: 228 Pa. Super. 225
Docket Number: Appeals, Nos. 422, 423, 424 and 488
Parties: Commonwealth v. Gianelli et al., Appellants.
Judges: Before Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. (Spaulding, J., absent.)
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 225–231

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Gianelli et al., Appellants.
Submitted December 3, 1973.
Before Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. (Spaulding, J., absent.)
W. Hamlin Neely, for appellants.
Lawrence J. Brenner, Assistant District Attorney, and George J. Joseph, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
June 21, 1974:

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam,
The sole issue raised by appellants is whether their motion to suppress should have been granted on the ground that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient. The facts are set out by Judge Hoffman in the Dissenting Opinion. However, the majority of the court considers that read as a whole the affidavit was sufficient to sustain an independent and detached appraisal that probable cause for a search existed. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 446 Pa. 65, 285 A. 2d 510 (1971). The affidavit contains many key facts {e.g., the telephone number, a description of the mode of operation, the clear implication that the informer supplied the address for the surveillance, an indication that the activity in question took place repeatedly), and it is impressively candid ("The informant does not have personal knowledge of this taking place during the week, but he does know that it takes place on Sundays"). These factors, together with the corroborating facts set forth in the affidavit, see United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971), convince the court that, although this is a close case, the affidavit is sufficient.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Cercone, J., concurs in this result.
Wright, P. J., and Spaulding, J., took no part in the decision of this case.