Commonwealth v. Billock

• Decision Date: 13 April 1972
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Billock, 221 Pa.Super. 441, 289 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert BILLOCK et al.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

289 A.2d 749

221 Pa.Super. 441

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert BILLOCK et al.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

April 13, 1972.

Paul M. Petro, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jess D Costa, Dist. Atty., Washington, for appellant.

J Sherman McLaughlin, Pittsburgh, Joseph P. Moschetta Washington, George Hallal, Uniontown, Reed, Smith, Shaw &amp McClay, Pittsburgh, Samuel L. Rodgers, Washington, for appellees.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN and CERCONE, JJ.

WATKINS Judge.

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, suppressing the evidence in a complaint charging the defendant with a violation of the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.The court below held that the magistrate did not have reasonable cause to issue the search warrant and the issuance was contrary to constitutional guarantees.

Trooper James C. Patt, a State Policeman for tweleve years and a narcotics agent since November, 1968, was the sole witness at the Suppression Hearing.He had obtained the warrant and was the prosecutor in the case.His testimony includes practically everything contained in the warrant itself and he also testified that he gave additional information contained in his testimony to the magistrate.Commonwealth v. Crawley,209 Pa.Super. 70, 223 A.2d 885(1966).

The following facts were related to the magistrate at the time he obtained the search warrant:

On April 4, 1969, he received complaints regarding the residence located at 175 South Wade Street, Washington, Pennsylvania and conducted a surveillance on that date and observed a vehicle in front of the residence.We found the license number of the car to be in the name of Andrew Rockwell, one of the defendants.

On April 7, 1969, he received information from a confidential informant that Robert J. Billock of 175 South Wade Avenue, Washington, Pennsylvania was expecting narcotics through the mail on either the 18, 19 or 20th of April.

He testified that his informant obtained the information from association with the defendants.He also testified that this informant had provided information to him in the past which resulted in the arrest and conviction of one William Teuteberg and he, therefore, considered his informant reliable.Trooper Patt then alerted the postal authorities concerning the arrival of the suspected contraband.On April 18, 1969, the witness was notified by the U.S. Postal Inspector, John Parker, 'that a letter bulkier than normal, which was discolored on the back had arrived at the Post Office in Washington.'The return address was Felix Pappalardi, 13 Kensington Market Place, New York City, New York.

Trooper Patt testified that he shook the letter.It was not opened, because it was first class mail, '. . . and by shaking the letter you could hear something in there like the sounds of seeds or powder or something shaking inside the letter'.

On the same date the officer went to the Alderman, executed the affidavit for a search warrant which contained the information related above and alleged:

'. . . there is probable cause and reasonable grounds for my believing that certain narcotic drugs and paraphernalia to wit: narcotic drugs (marihuana) and dangerous drugs, narcotic paraphernalia, smoking pipes, belonging to and/or in the possession of Mr. Robert Billock et al.John Doe are possessed, certain premises, described as a 2-story shingled residence, located at 175 South Wade Avenue, Washington, Penna.'

On April 19, 1969, at 9 a.m., Trooper Patt and U.S. Postal Inspector Parker, plus two other State Troopers, went to the residence and what happened is described by Trooper Patt as follows:

'The letter was delivered by Inspector Parker at that address and the letter was turned over to Mr. Billock; and then after Mr. Billock had received the letter then Officer Stanek, Paraska and I entered the house; knocked on the door and asked for Mr. Billock and at that time we entered the house and advised him that we had a Search Warrant and he had the letter in his hand, and it was at that time that I retrieved the letter from his hand and the Search Warrant was read to this individual.The letter was opened in his presence, and the letter contained a quantity of white powder.'

The return of the search warrant lists twenty-one (21) suspected narcotic items as the product of the search of the residence.

The question before us on appeal is whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant to search the premises.We agree with the Commonwealth that the warrant must be read as a practical document and not as a literary gem and common sense must be applied to the determination as to whether probable cause existed.

Probable cause was here furnished by information supplied by a reputable informant and corroborated by police investigation.Probable cause exists if the factual evidence, which the police officer swears to, would warrant a man of reasonable caution in believing that a crime was or is being committed.Carroll v. United States,267 U.S. 132, 161, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543(1925).

...