Court Opinion

ID: 9710145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:02:59.116835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.609047
License: Public Domain

CASTILLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Although the record is not well developed, it appears that the second exception to the knock and announce rule set forth in Commonwealth v. Means, 531 Pa. 504, 508, 614 A.2d 220, 222 (1992), that the police are virtually certain that the occupants of the premises already know their purpose, applies in this situation. The officers were separated from appellant and the other occupants of the house only by a screen door through which they could see one of the occupants move away from the door when the police rang the bell and identified themselves as police. That response to the presence of police at the door indicates that the police, who were wearing black jackets with the words “State Police” written across the front in large yellow letters, were most likely visible to the occupahts and that the occupants of the house already knew the officers’ purpose. Id. at 508, 614 A.2d at 222. Therefore, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court.