After noticing a laceration above Mrs. Bagley's right eye and bruises on her body, the head administrative nurse became suspicious, and contacted the Radnor Township Police later that day. She told the police of the statements made by Mr. Bagley when he brought his wife into the hospital.

The police department applied for a search warrant explaining that its purpose was to allow the police to gather evidence such as hairs, fibers, prints and other items "which may have something to do with the suspicious death of Mrs. Yvonne Bagley."

Mr. Bagley later moves to suppress evidence obtained via this warrant.

Answer
The court in this case -- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Charles Bagley, 408 Pa. Super. 188, 596 A.2d 811 (1991) -- held that this warrant was defective. Upon examination, the court held that the affidavit "leads to the inescapable conclusion that the warrant was issued not upon a showing of reasonable probability that a crime had been committed, but, rather, upon nonspecific suspicions surrounding the death of Yvonne Bagley." The broad language used in the warrant application authorized police to seize anything that may have been related to the victims death without ever stating any reason for believing that she had been murdered. Since the court believed the warrant allowed for a general investigation, rather than a search for specific evidence in solving a crime, it granted the defendant's motion to suppress.