Opinion ID: 2163467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the Warrant

Text: Both lower courts found that the search of the basement of the convenience store fell outside the scope of the warrant. The Superior Court concluded that because Gooden and the G-Service Convenience Store, not the basement, were the targets of the police investigation, the search of the basement exceeded the scope of the warrant. Super. Ct. Op., at 5. Thus, the Superior Court agreed with the suppression court that prior to the execution of the warrant and the entry into the building by the police, the Duquesne Police Department lacked probable cause to search the basement. We agree. The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the issuance of any warrant unless based upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend IV. The scope of a lawful search pursuant to a warrant is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987); Commonwealth v. Kiessling, 380 Pa.Super. 442, 552 A.2d 270, 272 (1988), allocatur denied, 522 Pa. 602, 562 A.2d 825 (1989). In the present case, the police possessed a valid warrant to search the G-Service Convenience Store. The warrant described the place to be searched as: 418 Crawford Ave[.] Duquesne[,] PA 15110Corner of Crawford & 5th Street2 story White Brick. A white sign is above the entrance labled (sic) G-Service Convenience Store[] & 2 phone numbers 466-1071 and 466-1061 painted in red (also a picture of a car on the sign)[.] Search Warrant (R.R. 17a). The affidavit of probable cause repeatedly emphasized that the investigation and surveillance focused on the G-Service Convenience Store and did not mention the basement barbershop. Application for Search Warrant and Affidavit of Probable Cause (R.R. 17a-19a). While the barbershop was located in the same building as the convenience store, the suppression court found the barbershop to be a separate and distinct facility from the convenience store. The record, which contains evidence that the basement housed only barbershop equipment and activity, sufficiently supports the finding of the suppression court. Because the barbershop existed as a separate facility from the convenience store and the police did not have probable cause to believe that drug activity had occurred in the barbershop, the basement barbershop fell outside the scope of the warrant issued to search the convenience store.