Court Opinion

ID: 9697458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:17:20.047072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:32.718091
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
In the instant case the police arrived at appellees’ apartment with a validly issued warrant, knocked on the door, and waited for one of the inhabitants to open the door. They then went into the apartment without being invited, announcing as they went the purpose of their obvious unwelcomed visit. If I understand the majority opinion, the fruits of this search would be admissible if the police had announced their purpose and then walked in, as opposed to the other way around. Granted the former would have been better practice, but the issue is whether suppression is the right remedy for the relatively minor error of taking certain steps out of sequence.
To my mind any constitutional concerns were amply protected by the obtainment of a valid warrant. Consequently, what occurred here was a violation of a rule of criminal procedure; and we have previously held that a mere techni*412cal violation of a rule will not automatically trigger the draconian remedy of suppression. Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 406-407, 490 A.2d 421, 426 (1985). Under the facts of this case, I would not suppress the fruits of this search. Therefore, I dissent.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.