J-A06037-22

2023 PA Super 136

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

MICHAEL GOODIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 701 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 8, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001278-2017

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING OPINION BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED: July 28, 2023

After careful consideration of the record and the narrowly-construed

case law regarding the “knock and announce rule” and its exceptions, I am 

constrained to join the majority opinion because the Commonwealth’s 

evidence did not strictly comply with the rule or neatly fit into its carved-out 

exceptions. However, I write separately to emphasize that the actions of the 

law enforcement officers in serving the warrant in this case complied with the 

general principles of the rule by balancing Goodis’s privacy interests and the 

officers’ personal safety concerns in a situation where the officers perceived a 

legitimate safety risk. This balance is borne out by six videos from Goodis’s 

own security cameras which were admitted by stipulation at the suppression 

hearing. See N.T. 7/20/18, at 6, Exhibit A, Videos 1-6. 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06037-22

- 2 -

This Court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact so long as they 

are supported by the record, but it reviews questions of law de novo. See 

Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2022) 

(citing Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 506 (Pa. 2017). When 

the Commonwealth prevails at the suppression hearing, the Court may only 

consider the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for 

the defense as remains uncontradicted. See id. The Court’s scope of review 

is limited to the suppression hearing record. See id. 

The knock and announce rule requires that before entering a dwelling 

to execute a search warrant police must announce their identity, purpose, and 

authority and give the occupant a reasonable period of time after the 

announcement to admit them, absent exigent circumstances that require 

immediate forcible entry. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 207; Commonwealth v. 

Frederick, 124 A.3d 748, 754-56 (Pa. Super. 2015). The rule seeks to 

prevent resistance by an occupant to protect his privacy, prevent violence and 

physical injury to police and occupants, protect an occupant’s privacy 

expectation, and prevent property damage resulting from forced entry. See 

Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 146 (Pa. 1997). Exigent 

circumstances permitting non-compliance with the knock and announce rule 

include situations where the police have reason to believe that an 

announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety. See Frederick, 124 
J-A06037-22

- 3 -

A.3d at 755. The remedy for a knock and announce violation is always 

suppression. See id. 

As Goodis’s own surveillance videos establish, his house is in a rural 

area and Officers David Lepovsky and Brian Sadlowe, and Lieutenant Robert 

Jones, who went to Goodis’s house to execute the search warrant needed 

thirty seconds to walk a long pathway from the street to the house in full view 

of Goodis’s security cameras. See Exhibit A, Video 1 at 0:00-0:30. A separate

video shows that before approaching the front door, the law enforcement 

officers conducted a search of the perimeter of the house and garage. See

Exhibit A, Video 2 at 0:00-0:56. Officer Lepovsky testified that none of the

officers saw any evidence to suggest that anyone was in the house. See N.T., 

7/20/18, at 9-11.1 

____________________________________________

1 The police exercise of caution before approaching the house comported with 

the protection of both Goodis and the officers, who face an increasing risk of 

ambushes from citizens particularly when they go to serve arrest or search 

warrants at citizens’ residences. See

https://cbsnews.com/philadelphia/james-oconnor-hassan-elliottphiladelphia-police-swat-officer-shot-and-killed-while-serving-warrant-infrankford/ (last viewed July 20, 2023) (reporting that Philadelphia Police 

Officer was killed while serving warrant at suspect’s home);

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/gilroy-police-officer-involvedfatal-shooting-ambush-wanted-attempted-murder/ (last viewed July 20, 

2023) (reporting that a man called police purportedly to surrender on an 

attempted murder charge, then opened fire on an officer who arrived at the 

address to which he had summoned police);

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local crime/article248942479.html

(last viewed July 20, 2023) (reporting that two FBI agents attempting to 

execute a search warrant were killed when a gunman opened fire from inside 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A06037-22

- 4 -

Another third video shows that in apparent response to a knock, Goodis 

looked at the kitchen door window toward the three officers, who stood in the 

sunlight. Goodis, who was wearing a shirt, held up his right finger signaling 

the officers to wait and disappeared from the officers’ view. See Exhibit A, 

Video 4 at 0:08-0:10, N.T. 7/20/18, at 12. Officer Lepovsky opened the 

unlocked door and from outside the house and stated, “Hey, Buddy, are you 

alright?” Goodis stated, “Yeah, I’m good,” and returned to the uniformed 

officer’s line of vision. Still outside the house, Officer Lepovsky said, “Hey 

come here, come out here and talk to me.” See id. at 0:10-0:16. Goodis 

again held up his finger, said something inaudible, and again disappeared from 

the officer’s sight. See id. at 0:12-0:18.

Officer Lepovsky said, “Okay, alright,” he drew his gun, pointed it at the 

ground, and slowly took four steps toward the kitchen. Goodis put on 

sweatpants. See id. at 0:17-0:22. Officer Lepovsky asked, “Are you by 

yourself?” Goodis returned to the officer’s line of sight and answered, “Yes.”

With his gun still pointed down, Officer Lepovsky said, “I don’t like, I don’t like 

it when you walk away from me, you know what I mean? I see you holding 

up one finger and then you walk away.” Goodis took two steps toward the 

officer. See id. at 0:23-0:31. 

____________________________________________

his home having monitored the approach of agents with a doorbell camera 

and shot them through the unopened door with an assault rifle). 
J-A06037-22

- 5 -

Officer Lepovsky kept his gun pointed at the ground, gestured for Goodis 

to join him, backed up, and said, “Come on out here, I’m going to put this 

back here,” referring to his gun, and asked, “What’s your . . . name” as he 

stepped outside of the house and replaced his gun in its holster. Goodis 

followed him and answered, “Michael.” See id. at 0:31-0:36. As Goodis 

reached the door, Officer Lepovsky introduced himself from outside the 

residence. See id. at 0:36-0:38. Officer Sadlowe and Lieutenant Jones 

introduced themselves and Lieutenant Jones answered Goodis’s questioning 

about how he was doing by saying, “Good. I’m here because I have a search 

warrant for your residence today.” Goodis answered, “Okay.” Lieutenant 

Jones stated, “I’ll let you read everything. You’re not under arrest at this 

point.” See id. at 0:46-0:49.

Plainly, Officer Lepovsky never aimed his gun at Goodis and once the 

safety concern of Goodis’s disappearances from his sight dissipated, the officer 

backed up, put his gun away, and left the house, leading to a discussion at 

the door among Goodis and the three officers without any search having taken 

place. After the conversation at the doorway, Goodis is seen ushering the 

police into the house and showing them a computer in a backpack at the 

kitchen table. See Exhibit A, Videos 5 and 6. Tellingly, there is no show of 

force and the conduct appears entirely consensual. However, although I agree 

with the trial court that an overly technical approach to the knock and 

announce rule is inadvisable where the police conduct is reasonable and the 
J-A06037-22

- 6 -

purpose of the rule has not been offended, that is not the law. Here, testifying 

more than two years after the event, none of the officers could say with 

certainty that they had announced their identity and purpose prior to entry2

and Officer Lepovsky did not have a pre-existing safety concern, and that is 

what the current case law focuses on.3

The exclusionary rule is intended to deter illegal police conduct and 

protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. See United States v. 

Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (Pa. 1974); Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 

A.2d 887, 899 (Pa. 1991). Those purposes are not furthered by the result in 

this case. I agree with the trial court’s assessment that the police had a 

legitimate concern for their safety, see Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/18, at 5. We 

should not have the strict letter of the rule swallow up good, commonsense 

responses to law enforcement’s legitimate safety concerns, but the case law 

____________________________________________

2 The microphone from Video 4 did not fully capture sounds made outside the 

house while the door was closed.

3 Notably, the videos from Goodis’s own security cameras contradict his 

suppression hearing testimony that he emerged naked from his shower and 

saw people standing outside, and did not have any clothing on, and further 

that he walked to his left into the kitchen upon seeing the police “to at least 

get a t-shirt and some boxers on, and before I . . .. Before I was able to do 

anything, I was basically being held point blank at gunpoint in my kitchen.” 

See N.T., 1/29/18, at 22-23 (intervening question omitted). Exhibit A Videos 

3 and 4 show that Goodis was not naked at the time of the police entry but 

wore a shirt, boxer shorts, and socks. Further, footage from Video 4 shows 

that Goodis was not “basically being held point blank at gunpoint” in his 

kitchen; Officer Lepovsky kept his gun pointed to the ground at all times. See

Video 4 at 0:17-0:36. 
J-A06037-22

- 7 -

in this area is clear enough to warrant reversal despite my reticence. Because 

the case law concerning the safety exception in knock and announce cases is 

well developed in this Commonwealth and the facts here do not comply with 

the narrow exception, I concur in the majority opinion.