Com. v. Smyser
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 205 Pa.Super. 599,211 A.2d 59 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Frances SMYSER and Michele Reis. |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1965 |
Page 59
v.
Frances SMYSER and Michele Reis.
[205 Pa.Super. 600]
Page 60
William J. Carlin, Dist. Atty., Ward F. Clark, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Doylestown, for appellant.Frederick E. Smith, Ross, Smith & Renninger, Doylestown, for appellees.
Before ERVIN, Acting P. J., and WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
ERVIN, President Judge.
The Commonwealth appeals from the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County ordering that property and evidence obtained during a search [205 Pa.Super. 601] of defendant Michele Reis' rented room on May 31, 1963, be excluded from evidence at any hearing or trial involving defendant
Page 61
Reis or the co-defendant Frances Smyser. Such an appeal is properly made at this time: Com. v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304.The goods in question include some peyote buttons (a dangerous drug under The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act of September 26, 1961, P.L. 1664, 35 P.S. § 780-2(h)), a pipe stem and bowl, a vial containing traces of marijuana and marijuana seeds (narcotic drug, 35 P.S. § 780-2(g)), and a bottle of pills which the record indicates are probably harmless vitamin pills.
The court below found that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was deficient in several respects and therefore the warrant which was issued to the police on the basis of that affidavit was void. Moreover, the court held that even if the warrant had been properly issued and had been a valid document, the search was an unreasonable one within the standards of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and art. I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, P.S. It held, therefore, that evidence obtained as a result of that search could not be used against the defendants in this case. The first aspect of the case, i. e., the sufficiency of the affidavit for a search warrant and consequently of the warrant issued to the police, determines this case.
The complaint sworn before a justice of the peace reads as follows: 'Before me, the subscriber one of the Justices of the peace in and for the County aforesaid, personally came Chief William D. Brooke of New Hope Borough Police, who upon his solemn oath according to law saith that on or about the 31st day of May, A.D.1963, in the Borough of New Hope, County of Bucks aforesaid, that as a result of investigations the deponent verily believes that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a person or persons have or will [205 Pa.Super. 602] conceal narcotics, dangerous drugs and paraphernalia pertaining to the use of narcotics on the premises of the apartments located at 82 South Main Street, New Hope, Pennsylvania, Contrary to Act approved September 26, 1961 by the Assembly, 'And further saith not. Complainant (s) William D. Brooke, Chief of Police.'
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, art. I, § 8, similarly provides: 'The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.'
The question of probable cause upon which a warrant may issue is determined by the judge or magistrate who is asked to issue the warrant. The case of Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Lapia
...in connection with a Commonwealth appeal from an order suppressing evidence was in Commonwealth v. Smyser, 205 Pa.Superior Ct. 599, 211 A.2d 59 (1965). There we said simply, "Such an appeal is properly made at this time: Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.......
-
United States v. Geller, Crim. No. 82-224.
...§ 85 demonstrates that Pennsylvania has barred the introduction of illegally seized evidence from its courts. Commonwealth v. Smyser, 205 Pa.Super. 599, 211 A.2d 59 (1965). In fact, Pennsylvania is bound by and adheres to the "general rule" that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible a......
-
Com. v. Lapia
...in connection with a Commonwealth appeal from an order suppressing evidence was in Commonwealth v. Smyser, 205 Pa.Superior Ct. 599, 211 A.2d 59 (1965). There we said simply, "Such an appeal is properly made at this time: Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304." Id. at 601, 211 A.......
-
Com. v. Barba
...is co-extensive with the guarantee contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Commonwealth v. Smyser, 205 Pa.Super. 599, 211 A.2d 59 (1965). The Fourth Amendment provides that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... and particularly describing ......