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 PENNSYLVANIA v. DONALD LOUIS MARINI (12/02/77)

decided: December 2, 1977.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD LOUIS MARINI



No. 904 April Term, 1976, Appeal from the Suppression Order of June 29, 1976, of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Westmoreland County, No. 583 April Term, 1976.

COUNSEL

John J. Driscoll, Assistant District Attorney, with him Albert M. Nichols, District Attorney, Greensburg, for Commonwealth appellant.

Irving M. Green, New Kensington, submitted a brief for appellee.

Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ., concur in the result. Watkins, President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Price

[ 251 Pa. Super. Page 204]

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from a suppression order entered by the court below.*fn1 We find that the lower court erred in granting the motion to suppress, and therefore, we reverse.

On January 17, 1976, State Trooper Michael D. Deise obtained two warrants authorizing a search of appellee's apartment and car. The search, conducted that same day, uncovered numerous schedules and materials that led to the filing of pool selling and bookmaking charges against appellee. Following a hearing, the lower court granted appellee's motion to suppress.

In reviewing a suppression court's ruling, we are bound by factual findings supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 472 Pa. 95, 371 A.2d 207 (1977); Commonwealth v. Bundy, 458 Pa. 240, 328 A.2d 517 (1974).

Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(d) mandates that:

"The application [for suppression] shall state specifically the evidence sought to be suppressed, the specific constitutional grounds rendering the evidence inadmissible, and shall state with particularity the facts and events in support thereof."

In his application for suppression, appellee merely provided a factual description of the warrants' issuance and execution, combined with the following:

"3. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued, did not meet the requirements of proof of probable cause for the issuance of said warrant, hence the subsequent search was illegal and in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant."

There are many conceivable attacks on probable cause as set forth in an affidavit for a search ...


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.