Commonwealth v. Goldsborough, 2011 Pa. Super. 229 (Pa. Super. 2011)

In January of 2009, Trooper Skahill, of the Pennsylvania State Police, received information from a confidential informant that he had observed Goldsborough involved in drug trafficking out of his two cars. Trooper Skahill had had previous contacts with the informant that led to the arrests of eight other individuals. Later, a second, equally reliable informant came forward with information that corroborated the first informant’s tip.

The police began undercover surveillance on defendant’s home. During the surveillance, defendant reported a burglary and called uniformed police to his house. Immediately after the report, defendant walked to his two cars and checked them carefully. Afterward, one of the surveiling officers walked over to defendant in a vest marked “state police.” Defendant attempted to flee, but was tackled. Police recovered contraband from his person, and more contraband, as well as nearly $16,000, in his cars. The defendant was arrested.

At suppression, the trial court concluded that the police lacked probable cause to place defendant under arrest, because they had not observed any illegal activity. The Superior Court disagreed. 

 

Instead, the Court held that because both informants had proved reliable in the past, their corroborating tips were sufficient, in themselves, to establish probable cause for an arrest. Moreover, the fact that defendant was particularly protective of his cars following a burglary of his house tended to support the informants’ claim that he was keeping drugs and cash in them. On this basis, the trial court remanded for trial.