Court Opinion

ID: 9756401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:27:06.420922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:21.572779
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
I join with the majority of my colleagues in the decision that there was an unreasonable search and seizure in this case for the reasons set forth in Judge Cbrcone’s opinion; but I also believe that the search warrant was issued without probable cause.
The search warrant was based on an affidavit1 of Officer Robert E. Garrettson, a narcotics agent for the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth on this appeal has not attempted to dispute that the affidavit was insufficient since it did not contain underlying facts from which the magistrate could find probable cause. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964). However, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Crawley, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 70, 223 A. 2d 885 (1966), affirmed, 432 Pa. 627, 247 A. 2d 226 (1968), at the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth attempted to support the search warrant by introducing the sworn testimony of Officer Garrettson. This testimony revealed that he had informed the issuing magistrate that he had been told by an unnamed narcotics agent in Philadelphia that a Mr. *438Phillip Capobianco, who had been arrested on an unrevealed charge, had mailed five pounds of marijuana to the defendant on October 6,1967, and also had mailed five pounds to another individual at another university.
It is apparent that the probable cause in this case rests on the reliability of Capobianco. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that his information has been reliable in the past, and the admission of criminal activity in his information cannot supply such reliability. Furthermore, I do not believe that the magistrate should have accepted this information from Officer Garrettson, who had not been in the presence of Capobianco when the statement was made. This “hearsay on hearsay” also cannot be condoned as being derived from the personal observations of one of several officers conducting a common investigation. See United States v. Ventresoa, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965).
Therefore, for these additional reasons, I concur.

 “. . . [0']n or about the 6th day of Oct., 1967, the following goods and chattels, to wit: A quantity of Marijuana were by some person or persons, sent or mailed to one Roy McOlouskey [sic], a College student (Bucknell) residing at Room No. 373 Swartz Hall, Bucknell U. Lewisburg, Pa. and that the said goods and chattels, as the complainant has just and reasonable cause to suspect and believe, and does suspect and believe, are concealed in the Room of one Roy W. McOlouskey [sic.] at Bucknell U. County of Union and State of Pennsylvania.” (Record, 3a).