four-corners rule in Pennsylvania

2015We note the rules regarding a determination of the existence of probable cause: ____________________________________________ 5 Suarez labels his claim in terms of lack of standing, although substantively he also raises arguments addressing reasonable expectation of privacy and a four-corners challenge. 6 We are aware that our Supreme Court has since disapproved of Boulware on other grounds in Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 106 A.3d 695 (Pa. 2014). 7 For purposes of our discussion, we note that issues of standing or privacy interest are threshold issues that must be met to substantively challenge the

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2014But see, e.g., James, 69 A.3d at 187-90 (hearing on suppression may venture beyond the four corners to test the veracity of facts recited in the affidavit in support of probable cause); Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 304 Pa. Super. 307, 313 , 450 A.2d 694, 697 (1982) (observing that in Pennsylvania criminal defendants have the right to go beyond the four comers of the search warrant and challenge deliberate and material misstatements of the governmental affiant), aff’d by an equally divided court, 505 Pa. 414 , 480 A.2d 966 (1984); Commonwealth v. Ryan, 268 Pa. Super. 259 , 407 A.2d 1345 (1979), r

2010See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 574 Pa. 261, 272 , 830 A.2d 554, 560 (2003) (“[S]ince no factual question is involved in a four corners analysis of the sufficiency of a warrant affidavit, the issue is one of law as to which our review is plenary.”); McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 427 , 894 A.2d 1260, 1268 (2006) (“Our caselaw long has held that questions of law are accorded full appellate review, and our consideration is plenary.”); Guido v. Township of Sandy, 584 Pa. 93, 101 , 880 A.2d 1220, 1225 (2005) (since parties did not dispute facts, the issue presented was a purely legal one and our cour

2010See Commonwealth v. Coleman, 574 Pa. 261, 272 , 830 A.2d 554, 560 (2003) ("[S]ince no factual question is involved in a four corners analysis of the sufficiency of a warrant affidavit, the issue is one of law as to which our review is plenary."); McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 427 , 894 A.2d 1260, 1268 (2006) ("Our caselaw long has held that questions of law are accorded full appellate review, and our consideration is plenary."); Guido v. Township of Sandy, 584 Pa. 93, 101 , 880 A.2d 1220, 1225 (2005) (since parties did not dispute facts, the issue presented was a purely legal one and our cour

1987See, Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310 , 300 A.2d 78 (1973); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 209 Pa.Super. 70 , 223 A.2d 885 (1966), aff'd per curiam, 432 Pa. 627 , 247 A.2d 226 (1968).

1987See, Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310 , 300 A.2d 78 (1973); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 209 Pa.Super. 70 , 223 A.2d 885 (1966), aff'd per curiam, 432 Pa. 627 , 247 A.2d 226 (1968).

1987See, Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310 , 300 A.2d 78 (1973); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 209 Pa.Super. 70 , 223 A.2d 885 (1966), aff'd per curiam, 432 Pa. 627 , 247 A.2d 226 (1968).

1987See, Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310 , 300 A.2d 78 (1973); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 209 Pa.Super. 70 , 223 A.2d 885 (1966), aff'd per curiam, 432 Pa. 627 , 247 A.2d 226 (1968).

1975This testimony was clearly sufficient to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test. [Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).]

1975This testimony was clearly sufficient to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test. [ Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).] [1] Uniform Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, § 13; as amended October 26, 1972, P.L. 1048, No. 263, § 1; 35 P.S. § 780-113(a) (16).

1975This testimony was clearly sufficient to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test. [Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).]

1975This testimony was clearly sufficient to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test. [ Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969).] [1] Uniform Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, No. 64, § 13; as amended October 26, 1972, P.L. 1048, No. 263, § 1; 35 P.S. § 780-113(a) (16).

1975See Commonwealth v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201 , 58 A. 278 (1904); Commonwealth v. Fox, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 292 , 124 A.2d 628 (1956); ABA Standards, Criminal Appeals § 1.4 at 33 (Approved Draft, 1970). [2] The warrant was obtained several days before the four corners rule became effective, Pa.R.Crim.P. 2003; thus, testimony was admitted at the suppression hearing to establish the probable cause.

1975See Commonwealth v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201 , 58 A. 278 (1904); Commonwealth v. Fox, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 292 , 124 A.2d 628 (1956); ABA Standards, Criminal Appeals § 1.4 at 33 (Approved Draft, 1970). [2] The warrant was obtained several days before the four corners rule became effective, Pa.R.Crim.P. 2003; thus, testimony was admitted at the suppression hearing to establish the probable cause.