Commonwealth v. Edmunds
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991)
In August 1985, police received an anonymous tip that Edmunds (defendant) was growing marijuana in a building on his property. During the course of the subsequent investigation, the police obtained a warrant, searched the building, and found marijuana plants. At trial on multiple charges, the trial court found that the search warrant was invalid because the affidavit in support of the warrant lacked probable cause to establish a timeframe for when the informants obtained their information. The trial court found that the police acted in good-faith reliance on the warrant, however, and refused to exclude evidence from the search at trial. Following his conviction, Edmunds appealed. The superior court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Edmunds appealed again.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cappy, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 710,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.