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. DESMOND BROWN (08/25/86)

submitted: August 25, 1986.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DESMOND BROWN, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of January 22, 1986 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County, Criminal Division, at No. 85-10,449.

COUNSEL

James R. Protasio, Williamsport, for appellant.

Kenneth A. Osokow, Assistant District Attorney, Williamsport, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Watkins, Hoffman, and Hester, JJ.

Author: Hoffman

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 598]

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence for unlawfully dispensing controlled substances and falsifying or failing to provide material information. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained through an administrative inspection warrant issued by a district justice. We find this contention to be meritless and affirm the judgment of sentence.

On April 12, 1985, appellant was arrested and charged with several counts of unlawfully dispensing controlled substances and falsifying or failing to provide material information in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug,

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 599]

Device and Cosmetic Act, 35 P.S. ยงยง 780-101 to 780-144. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an administrative inspection warrant on the grounds that the warrant was defective because it was issued by a district justice. His motion was denied. Appellant was convicted and sentenced to a three-to-twenty-three month term of imprisonment. He filed post-verdict motions again alleging that the warrant was defective because it was issued by a district justice. The motions were denied and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an administrative inspection warrant. Specifically, appellant argues that the warrant was defective because it was issued by a district justice who has no authority to issue such warrants. We disagree.

The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act provides in pertinent part that:

Any judge of a court may, within its territorial jurisdiction, and upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants for the purpose of conducting administrative inspections authorized by this act or regulations ...


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.