Court Opinion

ID: 9754874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:17:17.597436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:00.295368
License: Public Domain

JACOBS, President Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent on the basis of this Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Myers, 239 Pa.Super. 459, 361 A.2d 884 (1976).
In Myers, a Chester County justice of the peace issued a search warrant for appellant’s residence located in Lancaster County. The search by Chester County police officers yielded stolen copper wire and a stolen dog, and appellant was arrested. These charges were subsequently nolle prossed. However, the search also revealed the presence of stolen automobile parts, and appellant was charged in Lancaster County with receiving stolen goods. The lower court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, holding that the evidence was properly introduced under the plain view doctrine. We reversed and remanded for a new trial, Judge VAN der VOORT dissenting, and held that the search was illegal because the justice of the peace was without jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. We said:
Rule 2001 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[a] search warrant may be issued by an issuing authority having jurisdiction of the person or place to be searched.” The general rule is that a justice of the peace, magistrate, or alderman has jurisdiction only over the locality in which he was elected; Commonwealth v. Herb, 211 Pa.Super. 119, 235 A.2d 429 (1967), therefore, a magistrate, alderman, or justice of the peace can only issue a warrant to search persons or places in the district in which he was elected. Commonwealth v. Myers, 239 Pa.Super. 459, 462, 361 A.2d 884, 885 (1976) (footnote omitted).
Although Myers involved a warrant issued by a magistrate of one county for a search in another county, I find its language and rationale insufficiently distinguishable from the present case to permit the opposite result.