Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-2043 criminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve VINCENT LEE WISE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-2043 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND NOW, this BEFORE GUIDO, J. ORDER day of MARCH, 1999, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. District Attorney William Braught, Esquire For the Defendant By th Edward E. Guido, J. :sld COMMONWEALTH Ve VINCENT LEE WISE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-2043 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Defendant has filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a Motion to Suppress Evidence. His only allegation is that the search warrant issued for his residence was fatally defective in that it does not contain sufficient facts to establish that probable cause existed for its issuance. A hearing was scheduled for February 16, 1999. The parties agreed that a copy of the search warrant would be admitted into evidence as Commonwealth Exhibit 1. No further evidence was presented. Both parties were given the opportunity to file briefs and argument was held. This matter is now ready for disposition. DISCUSSION On September 7, 1997 Detective Fones of the Carlisle Police Department's Narcotics Unit applied for a search warrant for the premises at 3 East Louther Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The affidavit of probable cause indicated that a Carlisle Police Officer had apprehended an individual with thirteen (13) one- eighth (1/8) ounce bags of marijuana in his possession at 1:55 p.m. The affidavit of probable cause went on to state as follows: NO. 98-2043 CRIMINAL TERM The suspect then revealed that they had just purchased the marihuana from Vince Wise at 3 E. Louther St. on 9- 6-98 during the late evening hours. They also observed Wise with a freezer bag containing approx. 4 additional oz's of marihuana, and scales. The Carlisle Narcotics Unit and Cumberland Co. Drug Task Force had received information in the past several months from cooperating individuals and other drug trafficker's that Wise was involved in selling marihuana. Based upon the aforementioned averments, District Justice Manlove issued the search warrant on the afternoon of September 7, 1998. The Defendant argues that the probable cause was insufficient because it was based upon the statement of an unnamed informant (the suspect) and there was nothing contained therein to establish his reliability. While he concedes, as he must, that a statement made against penal interest is sufficient to establish reliability,~ he argues that no such statement was made here. He reasons that the police had already caught the suspect in possession of the marijuana. Therefore, his acknowledgment as to where he purchased it would not subject him to any greater punishment. While interesting, Defendant's argument is not persuasive. There is no requirement that the statement against penal interest be the only evidence that the police have against the informant. Ail that is required is that the statement be against the penal interest of the one who makes it. If it is, that alone is sufficient indicia of reliability to support a finding of ~Com. v. Gray, 322 Pa. Super. 37, 469 A.2d 169 (1983). NO. 98-2043 CRIMINAL TERM probable cause to search. See Com. v. Luddy, 281 Pa. Super. 541, 422 A.2d 601 (1980) and Com. v. Moyer, 270 Pa. Super. Ct. 393, 411 A.2d 776 (1979). The facts of the case before us are strikingly similar to the recent case of Com. v. Wriqht, 702 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). The facts of Wriqht were summarized by the Superior Court as follows: On December 15, 1995, Detective James McBride of the city of York police department, observed Jason Bowie and Michael Burris delivering clear zip-lock baggies out of a car to various individuals for cash. After the vehicle drove away, the police stopped it, and seized cocaine, marijuana, and cash from Bowie and Burris. Bowie and Burris were arrested, charged as juveniles, and later certified to adult court. Detective McBride entered into an agreement with Burris in exchange for his cooperation in the police investigation. Pursuant to that agreement, Burris made a statement indicating who had supplied him with the drugs. Based on Burris' statement, Detective McBride obtained a search warrant for Room 131 of the Budget Inn in Springettsbury, which was registered in appellant's name. 702 A.2d at 364. Mr. Wright contended that the search warrant was defective because it contained no information to establish the reliability of the confidential informant.2 The Superior Court held that "the statements against penal interest support the validity of the warrant." 702 A.2d at 366. We see absolutely no meaningful distinction between the facts in Wright, and the instant case. 2The probable cause for the issuance of the warrant listed Mr. Burris as a confidential informant. NO. 98-2043 CRIMINAL TERM For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence will be denied. AND NOW, this ORDER day of MARCH, 1999, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney William Braught, Esquire For the Defendant :sld