J-S96005-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
TROY DEVON MARTIN,
Appellee No. 1855 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered November 3, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0012366-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SOLANO, J.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 31, 2017
Contrary to the Majority memorandum in this matter, I would instead
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s June 20, 2016 Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion, by the learned Judge Randal B. Todd, as I believe that opinion ably
and comprehensively disposes of the Commonwealth’s issue on appeal, and
does so based upon facts supported by the record and without legal error.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
The Majority characterizes the trial court’s decision to grant
suppression of the fruits of the search as mere second-guessing of the
magistrate’s decision to grant the search warrant. See Majority
Memorandum at 8 (noting that “reasonable minds frequently may differ on
whether a particular affidavit establishes probably cause,” but that a trial
court “must uphold that finding even if a different magistrate” would have
J-S96005-16
reached a different conclusion) (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.
897, 914 (1984)). I disagree. I do not believe that any reasonable
magistrate would have found that the affidavit of probable cause in this case
supported the specific search warrant issued. The warrant in this case was
issued primarily on the basis of: 1) the statements of the informant; and 2)
the discovery of paraphernalia and a trivial amount of marijuana in the trash
pulled from the searched residence. I would defer to the judgment of the
trial court that the informant’s reliability had not been sufficiently
established in the context of this case, as no information was offered as to
why and/or how the informant formed his allegation that Troy Devon Martin
and Martin’s codefendant were running a major heroin distribution ring from
the searched residence, and the portions of the informant’s statements
which were corroborated only involved observations of legal, innocuous
conduct. Moreover, the presence of less than a single plastic baggie (a
baggie diaper plus one baggie corner), in addition to marijuana remnants in
the residence’s trash, did not remotely corroborate the claim that a large
scale heroin distribution was ongoing, which was the impetus for the warrant
actually issued.1
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
____________________________________________
1
The warrant was not issued solely to permit the police to search for
evidence of marijuana consumption, which, at best, was what the trash pull
corroborated from the informant’s statements.
-2-