Commonwealth v. Gianelli

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Gianelli

323 A.2d 810, 228 Pa. Super. 225, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1575

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 21, 1974

DocketAppeals, Nos. 422, 423, 424 and 488

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 323 A.2d 810 (Commonwealth v. Gianelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Gianelli, 323 A.2d 810, 228 Pa. Super. 225, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1575 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole issue raised by appellants is whether their motion to suppress should have been granted on the ground that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient. The facts are set out by Judge Hoffman in the Dissenting Opinion. However, the majority of the court considers that read as a whole the affidavit was sufficient to sustain an independent and detached appraisal that probable cause for a search [227]*227existed. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 446 Pa. 65, 285 A. 2d 510 (1971). The affidavit contains many key facts {e.g., the telephone number, a description of the mode of operation, the clear implication that the informer supplied the address for the surveillance, an indication that the activity in question took place repeatedly), and it is impressively candid (“The informant does not have personal knowledge of this taking place during the week, but he does know that it takes place on Sundays”). These factors, together with the corroborating facts set forth in the affidavit, see United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971), convince the court that, although this is a close case, the affidavit is sufficient.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cercone, J., concurs in this result. Wright, P. J., and Spaulding, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The sole issue raised by appellants is whether their motion to suppress should have been granted on the ground that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient. The facts are set out by Judge Hoffman in the Dissenting Opinion. However, the majority of the court considers that read as a whole the affidavit was sufficient to sustain an independent and detached appraisal that probable cause for a search [227]*227existed. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 446 Pa. 65, 285 A. 2d 510 (1971). The affidavit contains many key facts {e.g., the telephone number, a description of the mode of operation, the clear implication that the informer supplied the address for the surveillance, an indication that the activity in question took place repeatedly), and it is impressively candid (“The informant does not have personal knowledge of this taking place during the week, but he does know that it takes place on Sundays”). These factors, together with the corroborating facts set forth in the affidavit, see United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 (1971), convince the court that, although this is a close case, the affidavit is sufficient.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cercone, J., concurs in this result. Wright, P. J., and Spaulding, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 A.2d 810, 228 Pa. Super. 225, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gianelli-pasuperct-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack