PA: CI’s false statement that made it to affidavit required suppression under state law

False statement from a CI in a SW affidavit made the search warrant subject to suppression. The GFE does not apply in Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Antoszyk, 2009 PA Super 232, 985 A.2d 975 (Pa. Super. 2009):

Because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply in Pennsylvania, we hold that the trial court properly suppressed the evidence obtained solely through the deliberate misstatements the informant admittedly made to the affiant. In so holding, we conclude that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 290 Pa. Super. 162, 434 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. 1981), was abrogated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991), and we adopt the lead opinion from this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Clark, 412 Pa. Super. 92, 602 A.2d 1323 (Pa. Super. 1992) (plurality). Accordingly, we affirm.

Defendant was seized and would not have felt free to terminate the encounter when the lights of the police car were in his face and all occupants of the car were asked for their IDs. Commonwealth v. Au, 2009 PA Super 231, 986 A.2d 864 (2009).*

Inevitable discovery supported search of defendant’s car left on the side of the road that could have been towed for safekeeping. Commonwealth v. Bailey, 2009 PA Super 230, 986 A.2d 860 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.