Court Opinion

ID: 9757391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:38:33.805528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:38.944020
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I join in Part I of the majority’s scholarly Opinion. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion in Part II that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search.
In my view, the warrant — as excised by the majority— satisfies the “totality of the circumstances” standard for probable cause as elucidated in Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476, 503 A.2d 921 (1985). Indeed, I would find the facts in the instant case virtually mirror those in Commonwealth v. Baker, 513 Pa. 23, 518 A.2d 802 (1986), a progeny of Gray. Speaking for the Court in upholding the validity of the warrant in Baker, Justice McDermott reasoned:
*225The warrant in this case was issued on March 12, 1981. The first sentence of the affiant’s probable cause statement explicitly recites defendant’s criminal conduct, to wit: “[BJetween the 5th and 12th of March, 1981, the actor did have in his possession a controlled substance containing T.H.C.” Later it is alleged that “[T]he actor related further information to the informant ... that he was expecting a larger quantity of a substance containing T.H.C. on or about the 11th or 12th of March, 1981.”
Thus, the magistrate was presented with a clear indication that a crime was being, or had recently been, committed, i.e. the possession of a controlled substance. In addition, he was also presented with reliable information that the commission of another crime was about to be, or had been, committed, i.e. the delivery of a larger quantity of a substance containing T.H.C.
Baker, 513 Pa. at 29, 518 A.2d at 805 (footnote omitted, first emphasis in original and second emphasis added).
As this language indicates, the Baker Court found that probable cause existed for two reasons: (1) the warrant was issued on the last date during which the defendant was in possession of a controlled substance; and (2) the defendant was expecting the delivery of a large quantity of drugs. I would not read Baker so narrowly as to require that an affiant must first learn of the delivery of a large quantity of a controlled substance before a warrant may be obtained. Although such information certainly would be helpful in establishing probable cause, Gray teaches us to look at all of the factors, not to focus on one particular factor or the lack thereof.
In this case, as in Baker, the warrant was issued on the last date in which Mr. Schaeffer was in possession of a controlled substance. Hence, “the magistrate was presented with a clear indication that a crime was being, or had recently been, committed.” Id. Because I find this information sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, I would hold the warrant was properly issued.