Court Opinion

ID: 9694358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:38:40.790399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:00.054547
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s determination that anticipatory search warrants do not violate the Constitution of Pennsylvania. See Commonwealth v. Peterson, 408 Pa.Super. 22, 43, 596 A.2d 172, 183 n. 7 (Pa.Super.1991) (Popovich, J., dissenting) (the problems of false exigency in search of a “gate house” where drugs were sold could have been eliminated by obtaining an anticipatory search warrant, citing Commonwealth v. Reviera, 387 Pa.Super. 196, 563 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Pa.Super.1989), appeal dismissed, 526 Pa. 41, 584 A.2d 308 (1991)), affirmed, 535 Pa. 492, 636 A.2d 615 (1993). I also concur in the majority’s resolution of appellant’s sentencing claims.
However, I write separately to note my concern with the police’s involvement in, or *816more properly, the inducement of appellant’s possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute by acting as the supplier of the drugs. I recognize that the issue of entrapment and the distinct issue of the violation of a defendant’s due process rights based upon the police’s “outrageous” involvement in the charged criminal activity have not been raised presently, and, even if raised, certainly would not have been successful, since appellant actually asked the informant to provide him with five to ten pounds of marijuana. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Mance, 539 Pa. 282, 652 A.2d 299 (1995) (where police supplied informant with marijuana to sell to defendant, no entrapment or violation of due process, since defendant voluntarily entered into drug transaction and police tactic of supplying informant with marijuana was not outrageous conduct).
Nevertheless, in the present ease, the police’s conduct did actually result in a crime of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute which carried a greater mandatory minimum sentence than that which appellant intended to commit. Appellant asked the informant to provide him with five to ten pounds of marijuana. If appellant was convicted of possessing more than two, but less than ten pounds of marijuana, a mandatory minimum sentence of one year and a mandatory minimum fine of $ 5,000.00, would have been applicable. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(l)(i).1 Despite appellant’s specific request, the police chose to deliver nearly twelve pounds of marijuana to appellant, thus, resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison and a $15,-000.00 fine. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(1)(H). In effect, the police created the factual conditions necessary to increase the mandatory minimum sentence in this case. This is an action of which I do not approve. However, since appellant has not raised this as a sentencing issue, it is waived, and I concur in the decision of the majority.

. If appellant has been convicted of another drug trafficking offense, then the mandatory minimum sentence increases to two years and a fine of $ 10,000.00. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7508(a)(l)(i). Since the presentence report has not been made a part of the official record, it is unclear whether appellant has a previous conviction for drug trafficking.