relying on Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)
How later courts described this case
- relying on Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)
- adopting the Gates analysis under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
- adopting probable cause test enunciated in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983): probable cause exists if there is fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found in particular place
- engaging in deferential review despite retaining the more restrictive Aguilar-Spinelli test
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*490 LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
Because we are required to follow the United States Supreme Court’s interpretations of the United States Constitution, Pennsylvania has, until now, been required to apply the unrealistic two-prong test of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). This has resulted in many cases being decided by crabbing over-technicalities. Now that the States have a greater choice in the matter, we are at liberty to adopt the most common sense approach. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), is the answer, with its more realistic view of the world. For that reason, even though some sister states have continued to apply the Aguilar-Spinelli test under their state constitutions, I join the majority in adopting the Gates decision and rationale.
McDERMOTT and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.