Opinion ID: 1972790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to quash appellant's motion to suppress evidence

Text: Appellant's motion to suppress evidence asserted a so-called four corners, argument, premised on Pa.R.Crim. Pro.R. 2003. [3] Essentially, this argument is that the probable cause to support a search warrant must appear on the face of (within the four corners of) the affidavits submitted to the issuing magistrate. The lower court held that this argument had been finally disposed of by this Court in appellant's direct appeal. We agree, for, while prior counsel may not have employed the four corners language, and while this Court may not have specifically applied Rule 2003 to the affidavits, nevertheless our holding addressed the substance of that issue and found it lacking. We listed the ten items in support of probable cause set forth in the affidavits and concluded there is no doubt that the search warrants issued were sufficiently supported by probable cause under the standards enunciated by this Court. 478 Pa. at 153-58, 386 A.2d at 485-87. (citation omitted). Appellant maintains that our prior holding considered certain oral testimony and that, therefore, we went beyond the four corners of the affidavits. This misperceives the nature of the issue before us then. Counsel there had argued that item # 1 (Tire imprints left at the scene are similar to imprints of the tires of the [automobile registered in the name of appellant's wife]) should play no part in our determination of probable cause as that item was discovered by a prior illegal search of appellant's automobile tires. We examined oral testimony to determine the legality of that challenged search. Having found no illegal search within the ambit of Fourth Amendment protections (and thus finding item # 1 was proper) we then had no difficulty finding the search warrants had been supported by probable cause by the items listed. Id., 478 Pa. at 158, 386 A.2d at 487. The merits of the four corners argument has, therefore, been finally litigated and the lower court properly quashed appellant's motion to suppress evidence.