Social Media Slip-Up: Superior Court Reverses Suppression in Adorno Search Warrant Case (2023)

Commonwealth v. Adorno, 2023 Pa. Super. 34 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)

In the case Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Isaiah Christian Adorno, the Commonwealth appealed from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County that granted Adorno’s motion to suppress evidence. The key issue revolved around the probable cause for a search warrant executed at Adorno’s residence, leading to the discovery of a firearm.

Superior Court’s Reasoning:

The Superior Court’s analysis was rooted in examining the sufficiency of the information provided in the search warrant affidavit. The affidavit detailed that Adorno’s landlord, Thomas Pratico, had positively identified the apartment in the Facebook Live video as Adorno’s residence. This identification was a crucial element in establishing a direct link between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.

The court contrasted this case with Commonwealth v. Way and Commonwealth v. Nicholson. In Way, there was a significant lack of connection between the street crime and the residence to be searched. Similarly, in Nicholson, there was no direct link between the criminal activity and the defendant’s home. However, in Adorno’s case, the affidavit clearly indicated that the landlord confirmed the apartment shown in the video was Adorno’s, and the social media posts depicted Adorno with firearms and illegal narcotics inside his home. This provided a substantial nexus between the criminal activity and Adorno’s residence.

Addressing Factual Mistakes:

The Superior Court acknowledged that during the suppression hearing, evidence suggested that the apartment in the Facebook Live video might not have been Adorno’s but belonged to his friend, Savannah Albakri. The Commonwealth conceded this mistake but argued that it was neither deliberate nor knowing. The court emphasized that a factual mistake in the affidavit does not automatically invalidate a warrant unless it is proven that the affiant included deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth.

The court referenced Franks v. Delaware, which allows defendants to challenge a warrant’s validity based on untruthful information only if there is proof of deliberate or reckless falsehoods by the affiant. In this case, Adorno did not provide any evidence that Officer Petrucci made deliberately false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Consequently, the court concluded that the factual mistake did not undermine the probable cause established by the affidavit.

Evaluating the Evidence:

The court underscored that the affidavit contained sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief that evidence of crimes would be found at Adorno’s apartment. The landlord’s identification, combined with the social media posts, provided a credible basis for the search warrant. The court highlighted that officers had no reason to doubt the landlord’s information and that their reliance on it was reasonable.

The Superior Court found that the trial court erred in its legal conclusions by granting Adorno’s suppression motion. The warrant application, on its face, established probable cause to search Adorno’s apartment, and the factual mistake did not constitute a deliberate or reckless falsehood by the affiant. Therefore, the suppression order was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Superior Court’s opinion.