Court Opinion

ID: 9705862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:24:16.139866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:16.740644
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Watkins, J.:
I respectfully dissent. This case goes beyond Com. v. Richards, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 39, 182 A. 2d 291 (1962). In that case the officers were lawfully on the premises and allegedly made their search after arresting the defendant for assault and battery. Here, no warrant was obtained and the search was not incidental to an arrest, nor were the officers legally on the private property of the defendant.
The contention of the appellant (1) that the general nature of the locale created the risk of mob violence on the police officers and (2) that the entrance of the police was orderly and peaceful, as circumstances reasonably justifying the search, have a hollow ring. As the defendant contends the absence or presence of a warrant would not deter a mob attack, if such was contemplated, and the question is not whether their entry was orderly and peaceable but whether it was lawful.
In the Richards case, unlike the instant one, the officers had received specific information that the contraband was in transit and it may be argued that the probability of immediate movement and the escape of the contraband may make the search without a war*8rant reasonable. This is so held in the many state and federal automobile, truck and ship cases. But here, there was no such urgency present as there was no evidence to suggest that the contraband was in transit so as to permit the officers’ invasion of the private quarters of the defendant without a warrant. If the determination of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, as interpreted by this Court, has any meaning left, the opinion of Judge Gleason of the court below reading as follows, “I reluctantly must come to the conclusion that the officers could have gotten a search and seizure warrant and that the search, under all of the conditions without a warrant, was unreasonable, . . .”, should be affirmed.
Montgomery, J., joins in this dissent.