holding description of row house in search warrant was sufficiently specific in light of all facts of record, where diligent efforts of police to uncover drug operation in building did not disclose division of interior into two living areas; all outward signs and reasonably available information indicated building was single-family residence
How later courts described this case
- holding description of row house in search warrant was sufficiently specific in light of all facts of record, where diligent efforts of police to uncover drug operation in building did not disclose division of interior into two living areas; all outward signs and reasonably available information indicated building was single-family residence
- warrant for multi-unit household valid since police had no reason to know building was actually being used as multi-unit dwelling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
Andujar’s Sr.’s, apartment was in the front of the building, Andujar, Jr.’s, in the rear. The warrant authorized the search of Jr.’s apartment (“Name of owner, occupant or possessor of said premises to be searched . . . Julio Andujar, Jr.”). The police did search Jr.’s apartment, but before they did, they entered and started to search Sr.’s apartment, only desisting and proceeding to Jr.’s apartment when Sr. protested. 1
The majority holds that the search of Sr.’s apartment was legal. This holding, I submit, is in error. Contrary to the majority, there were indications on the exterior of the building that showed that it had been divided into apartments. As the lower court found: there were three different bell openings (the fact that only one worked is irrelevant); there were two places for mail — a mailbox attached to the wall, and a letter slot in the door; and there were two *332 gas and two electric meters. N.T. 30. On these facts, Commonwealth v. Johnson, 229 Pa.Super. 182 , 323 A.2d 26 (1974), is in point, and not distinguishable.
I nevertheless concur in the result reached by the majority. If the police had found something in Sr.’s apartment, Sr. would have standing to object to its use in evidence against him. The record is not entirely clear, but as I read it, the police found nothing in Sr.’s apartment; the contraband was in Jr.’s apartment. Assuming, however, that the police did find some contraband in Sr.’s apartment, still, Jr. has no standing to object to its use in evidence against him. Commonwealth v. Yucknevage, 257 Pa.Super. 19 , 390 A.2d 225 (1978).
The lower court should therefore have denied Jr.’s motion to suppress the contraband seized by the police, whichever apartment it was seized in.
. To quote the detective: “I started up the steps with Mr. Andujan, Sr. He was trying to convince me that I was in the wrong place. He was really trying to stop me from searching his residence. I told him that I had a legal right, that I had a search warrant. He said, “But this is an apartment.” And he explained that his son lived in the rear. By the time we got to the top of the second floor stairway, he had me convinced, and I came back down.” N.T. 9.