Jul 25, 2014 4 min read

A Washington County judge ruled a state police search warrant lacked the legal underpinnings required to stand up in court, which, in effect, means the drug evidence seized cannot be introduced against the defendant from Ellsworth, who was jailed for several months under $300,000 bond.

Brian A. Still Jr., 28, of 10 Main St., was arrested Sept. 4, 2012, when police seized what they termed “a significant amount of raw heroin,” along with a small amount of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, including small glassine “stamp bags” and a scale, a loaded .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol and $2,233.

Still’s attorney, John Puskar, argued the affidavit of probable cause failed to pass constitutional muster because it was based solely on information from anonymous third parties, did not specify which anonymous sources provided particular allegations and lacked significant corroboration.

Judge John DiSalle noted at that both a preliminary hearing and at a recent court proceeding, a trooper said he personally undertook no surveillance and therefore was unable to observe anything to corroborate the anonymous tips.

“There is nothing in the affidavit regarding the general veracity of the anonymous sources and nothing which would demonstrate their reliability,” the judge determined. “The trooper also testified that the sources had provided information to him in the past which resulted in arrests, however, that statement was not contained in the affidavit. Since the warrant was based upon anonymous sources or a confidential informant, the warrant must support the reliability of the unnamed source or informant with suffient facts. … Accordingly, the court finds that the affidavit of probable cause presented to the issuing authority failed to support a substantial basis for the finding that probable cause existed for the search.”

The prosecution argued that because the defendant was under the supervision of the Washington County probabtion office at the time of the search, his expectation of privacy was diminished, subjecting him to “a more relaxed” standard of reasonable suspicion. DiSalle also disagreed with this, deciding that “there should be no question that the defendant has an expectation of privacy in his home. … Merely having a probation officer accompany the police during the search did not change the nature of the intrusion.” The judge also said there was no evidence presented that the parole officer had reasonable suspicion that a parole violation was committed, or that the defendant had signed a parole agreement in which he consented to warrantless searches.

DiSalle noted there are eight factors to be taken into account to determine reasonable suspicion to search a probationer or parolee, and only one – information provided by others – was set forth in the affidavit of probable cause.

Based on the reasons he discussed in the eight-page opinion, DiSalle ordered that all evidence seized in the 2012 search of Still’s home be suppressed.

“We are very pleased Judge DiSalle upheld the rule of law and held police officers to the standard of the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” Puskar said. “In my opinion, successful prosecution of the case would be exceptionally difficult without the evidence seized being introduced at trial.”

The district attorney’s office has 30 days to appeal DiSalle’s ruling.

Assistant District Attorney John Friendmann said his office is “reviewing what our next step is going to be. Obviously, the opinion is very well-reasoned, and we understand the judge’s determination.”

Regardless of what happens with the charges, attorneys for both sides said the drugs and contraband seized in the case would be destroyed.

Still has charges pending from another drug arrest in North Strabane Township, and yet another suppression hearing is scheduled next month. He was released from Washington County jail this past spring after DiSalle reduced his $300,000 bond to an unsecured bond.