Com. v. Gonzalez, J. (concurring and dissenting memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S68017-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOHN GONZALEZ, Appellant No. 2797 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 12, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010852-2011 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.FILED JUNE 02, 2014 claims but one: I believe the warrant issued to search the Germantown Avenue property was not supported by probable cause. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. The Majority is correct in its analysis with respect to the warrants information supporting probable cause in those instances was stale is meritless. On August 9, 2011, the police had developed probable cause to arrest Appellant for selling marijuana to the confidential informant. At that time, it was apparent that Appellant had returned to his residence to retrieve ____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S68017-13 the contraband before completing the sale. Although two weeks had passed before the warrants were issued on August 23, 2011, that information was from Appell evidencing a reasonable likelihood that Appellant was involved in an ongoing illegal enterprise. However, no observations were made involving the Germantown Avenue property on August 9, 2011. Trial Court Opinion, 3/28/13, at 3-4. the Germantown Avenue property with a one-pound package of marijuana was not credible on its face. Officer Sarris observed a square object in a plastic bag from a distance. Id. at 5 n.22. No amount of training and experience can convert that observation into a reasonable conclusion that the bag contained marijuana. Mysteriously, the bag and its alleged contents were never recovered by police, despite the fact that they stopped Appellant, a few blocks away, immediately following his departure from the Germantown Avenue property. Id. at 6investigation of the Germantown Avenue property as a suspected marijuana growing operation was eight years stale. Id. at 5 n.20. reasonable suspicion that the Germantown Avenue property was involved in Id. at 5. I would conclude, -2- J-S68017-13 suppression motion in this regard. suppression claim as it relates to the warrants issued for the search of his truck and residence, but I would grant Appellant relief with respect to the warrant issued to search the Germantown Avenue property. I am in agreement with the Majority with respect to its disposition of all of pre-trial issues in this appeal. In this regard, motion to produce the confidential informant. I respectfully dissent. -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
