Court Opinion

ID: 9708916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:35:25.182332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:44.629293
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the result reached by the majority but write separately to express my reasons. It cannot be disputed that entering into the screen porch area of the Appellee’s home was an “entry” under Pa.R.Crim.P. 2007. However, *180the fact that Rule 2007 was violated does not require a finding of a constitutional violation under the Fourth Amendment and necessarily require suppression of the evidence seized.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. At the suppression hearing, State Trooper Terry Helwig, “testified that he did not believe that the occupants of the house would have heard a knock at the porch door.” (Maj. opinion at p. 176). Therefore, in order to implement the intent of the “knock and announce rule”, the State Troopers entered the porch and proceeded to the back door. After knocking on the back door and identifying themselves, the Appellee permitted the State Troopers to enter. Since the State Troopers in this case did not act “unreasonably” in executing the search warrant, there was no constitutional violation. It logically follows that if no constitutional violation occured, suppression was improper. For this reason, I join in the result reversing the order of the Superior Court.1
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

. Even though I agree with the result in this case, I am not in any way minimizing the violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 2007. In actuality, strict compliance with the rule in this case may have subjected the Appellee to less protection than actually afforded to him.