Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. GIANELLI ET AL. (06/21/74)

decided: June 21, 1974.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
GIANELLI ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeals from judgments of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Nos. 516, 517, 518 and 513 of 1971, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James P. Gianelli and Alma M. Gianelli.

COUNSEL

W. Hamlin Neely, for appellants.

Lawrence J. Brenner, Assistant District Attorney, and George J. Joseph, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. (Spaulding, J., absent.) Cercone, J., concurs in this result. Wright, P. J., and Spaulding, J., took no part in the decision of this case. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 228 Pa. Super. Page 226]

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

[ 228 Pa. Super. Page 227]

    existed. 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.

Disposition

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

In a trial before the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, appellant James Gianelli was convicted of bookmaking, trafficking in lotteries, and establishing a gambling place; and appellant Alma Gianelli was convicted of maintaining a gambling place. Both appellants contend that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.