Commonwealth v. Sell

Police officers executed a search warrant at an amusement arcade based on information from an informant. One of the arcade’s business partners, Larry Sell (defendant), was not present when the search took place. The search turned up several firearms, which were listed in the search warrant as target items from a recent burglary. Searching officers found the weapons on open shelves beneath the arcade counter. This area of the arcade was open to all employees. As a result of the search, Pennsylvania officials (plaintiffs) had Sell arrested for and charged with crimes related to receiving stolen property. Under the statute’s definition of “receiving,” possession was an essential element of the crime. In response, Sell made a pretrial motion to suppress the fruits of the search, claiming that the search warrant had been defective. The trial court agreed. The trial court concluded that Sell had automatic standing to challenge the warrant and that the warrant was defective on the grounds that the information’s reliability had not been properly established. The officials appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed, concluding that the concept of automatic standing had been overruled by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci and that Sell thus had no standing to challenge the search. Sell appealed.