Com. v. Rose
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | JACOBS; BECKERT |
| Citation | 211 Pa.Super. 295,235 A.2d 462 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1967 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Frank Carney ROSE. |
Page 462
v.
Frank Carney ROSE.
[211 Pa.Super. 296]
Page 463
John J. Collins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ward F. Clark, Dist. Atty., Doylestown, for appellant.Alan D. Williams, Jr., Williams & Glantz, Doylestown, for appellee.
[211 Pa.Super. 295] Before ERVIN, P.J., and WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN and SPAULDING, JJ.
[211 Pa.Super. 296] JACOBS, Judge.
The sole question in this case is whether an affidavit on which a search warrant was issued set forth probable cause. The court below held that it did not. We reverse.
Frank Carney Rose, the appellee, was indicted by the grand jury of Bucks County on a charge of possessing narcotics, a felony under Section 20 of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of September 26, 1961, P.L.1664, as amended, 35 P.S. § 780--20. Appellee filed a petition to suppress evidence seized by the police from his automobile pursuant to the search warrant. After a hearing the court below entered an order suppressing the evidence. The Commonwealth has appealed. Since appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order will substantially handicap the Commonwealth and hear the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963).
No facts were presented to the justice of the peace who issued the warrant except those set forth in the following affidavit: 1
[211 PA.SUPER. 297] 'COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF BUCKS:
'VINCENT FARAGALLI, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that he is the Chief of Police of Bristol Borough, Bucks County, Penna. and that he has received valuable information from Barbara A. Farrauto of 352 South Olden Ave., Trenton, New Jersey, who was a passenger in a 1962 Ford, Gray & Black Thunderbird with New Jersey Registration number JSD 833 on November 12, 1965, a Friday morning, at 2:35 .a.M.
'She identified the operator of the automobile as Frank Rose of Hobson Ave., R.D. #5, Trenton, New Jersey, known to her as 'Sonny' Rose as being the one that supplied the narcotics for her use, and that he had said narcotics in the automobile described above.
'On the basis of the above information the deponent has probable cause to believe that there are narcotics in the automobile at the present time.
'WHEREFORE, the deponent prays that a Search Warrant may be issued for entry into the said automobile and for the seizure of any and all narcotics to be found therein, and the same may be dealt with according to law.
'/s/ VINCENT FARAGALLI
'Chief of Police
'Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 12th November, 1965
'/s/ John P. Walker
Justice of the Peace
'My Commission Expires
January 1, 1970'
Page 464
In an able opinion the hearing judge, the Honorable PAUL R. BECKERT, correctly reviewed the rules of law governing the issuance of search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Lapia
...v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.2d at 61. Our next case was Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Superior Ct. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). There we said: "The Commonwealth has appealed. Since appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order w......
-
Commonwealth v. Lapia
...v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.2d at 61. Our next case was Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Superior Ct. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). There we said: "The Commonwealth has appealed. Since appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order w......
-
Com. v. Matthews
...1966); Owens v. Scafati, 273 F.Supp. 428 (D.Mass.1967); Commonwealth v. Stewart, Mass., 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Super. 295, 235 A.2d 462 All of the above cases however, are slightly distinguished from the instant case in that therein there was corroboration from ......
-
Commonwealth v. Matthews
...1966); Owens v. Scafati, 273 F.Supp. 428 (D.Mass.1967); Commonwealth v. Stewart, Mass., 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Super. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). All of the above cases however, are slightly distinguished from the instant case in that therein there was corroborati......
-
Com. v. Lapia
...v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.2d at 61. Our next case was Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Superior Ct. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). There we said: "The Commonwealth has appealed. Since appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order w......
-
Commonwealth v. Lapia
...v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.2d at 61. Our next case was Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Superior Ct. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). There we said: "The Commonwealth has appealed. Since appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order w......
-
Com. v. Matthews
...1966); Owens v. Scafati, 273 F.Supp. 428 (D.Mass.1967); Commonwealth v. Stewart, Mass., 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Super. 295, 235 A.2d 462 All of the above cases however, are slightly distinguished from the instant case in that therein there was corroboration from ......
-
Commonwealth v. Matthews
...1966); Owens v. Scafati, 273 F.Supp. 428 (D.Mass.1967); Commonwealth v. Stewart, Mass., 267 N.E.2d 213 (1971); Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Super. 295, 235 A.2d 462 (1967). All of the above cases however, are slightly distinguished from the instant case in that therein there was corroborati......