Court Opinion

ID: 9644449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:56:43.721755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:13.712793
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
I believe we should reverse and remand for a new trial.
-1-
In Commonwealth v. Williams, 483 Pa. 293, 396 A.2d 1177 (1978), the Supreme Court cited and adopted the reasoning of decisions by the Courts of Appeal of the District of Columbia, Second, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits, which
held that because of the Fourth Amendment and the substantial expectation of privacy in one’s home, an arrest warrant is required to validly arrest someone in his home unless exigent circumstances exist to justify the warrant-less intrusion. 483 Pa. at 297, 396 A.2d at 1179.
*551The first question we must decide, therefore, is whether in the present case “exigent circumstances” were shown to exist.1
I agree with the majority that in answering this question we should consider — as the Supreme Court in Williams considered — the six factors enumerated in Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970). See also United States v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412 (2d Cir. 1978). My disagreement with the majority is that when I consider those factors, I conclude that exigent circumstances were not shown to exist.
The six factors may be summarized as follows: (1) whether a grave offense is involved; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) whether there is clear, or strong, and not merely minimum, or just sufficient, probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the offense; (4) whether there is strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; (5) whether there is a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (6) the circumstances of the entry. In considering these factors the important point to bear in mind is that it is not enough simply to count to see how many of them exist, and then to say, for example, that if four exist, exigent circumstances may be found, but if only two exist, exigent circumstances may not be found. Instead, it must be borne in mind that the fifth factor — the likelihood of escape — dominates the others, or to say the same thing in different words, that the appropriate weight to be assigned to the various factors will vary according to the weight assigned the fifth factor.
*552This may be seen by supposing two cases: one in which the fifth factor is entitled to great weight, and one in which it is entitled to very little weight. Suppose a very strong likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended. Then, exigent circumstances may exist even though only a few of the other factors exist, or even if none of them exists. For example, if the suspect is wanted for gambling, and is not armed, still, if he is a big gambler — a kingpin of organized crime — and is obviously about to escape to another country, a warrantless arrest in his home may be justified. Now suppose a very weak likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended. Then, it is most unlikely that exigent circumstances will exist. To be sure, a case may be imagined where they will exist — for example, the case of a sniper who has barricaded himself in a tower.2 Such a case, however, will be unusual. Usually, whether exigent circumstances exist may be determined simply by asking, “Is there anything to suggest that the suspect intends immediate escape?” If the answer is, “No,” then the response should be, “Very well, get a warrant, if you intend to enter his home.” This is how the Supreme Court proceeded in Commonwealth v. Williams, supra, as it considered how to balance the several factors I have described. The Court noted that five factors weighed in favor of a warrantless arrest, but then (not in my words but in effect) asked itself whether there was anything to suggest that the suspect intended immediate escape. Since there was no evidence that the suspect was armed, and since, “[e]ven more importantly, the instant homicide pre-dated the date of arrest by approximately three years,” 483 Pa. at 300, 396 A.2d at 1180, nothing did suggest immediate escape. Accordingly, the Court found that “[t]here was little need of swift apprehension,” id., with the conclusion resulting that exigent circumstances did not exist, and that the police should therefore have obtained an arrest warrant, id.
*553Of course, this analysis will not be undertaken unless one attaches a special sanctity to the home, which the majority, I submit, does not do, as may be seen from its extended dictum.3 In my opinion, we should resolutely adhere to the tradition, so deeply embedded in our law, that the home is a special place, not to be invaded by the police except in the most stringently limited circumstances. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474, 484, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); United States v. Reed, supra; Commonwealth v. Williams, supra. And see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 444-453, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
If one applies these principles in considering the present case, one will readily conclude that the warrantless entry into appellant’s apartment was improper, and that accordingly, the evidence the police saw there, and seized, should have been suppressed. Nothing suggested that appellant intended immediate escape. To the contrary, the police had been told by the complainant that appellant was employed as superintendent of the apartment building in which his apartment was located. The plain indication was that if the police obtained a warrant, they would have no difficulty in finding and arresting appellant. The information supplied by the complainant was ample basis for the issuance of a warrant, and as it was during the day, to obtain a warrant would not have required much time.4
*554-2-
Since I have concluded that the starter pistol should have been suppressed, I must consider whether its admission in evidence requires a new trial. In this regard, the lower court also concluded that the starter pistol should have been suppressed; it went on to conclude, however, that its admission in evidence was harmless error.
At the trial the complainant testified as follows. On April 1, 1976, on her way up the stairs in her apartment building she saw appellant, the building superintendent. She told him she was having a problem with her bathroom sink, and asked him to come to her apartment to fix it. Appellant did, but after looking at the sink, made advances toward her. When she rejected these, appellant produced a gun and forced her to accompany him to his apartment in the basement. There, he forced her at gun point to perform sodomy, and then allowed her to leave. She went back to her apartment, cleaned up, went outside and reported the incident to the police. The next day appellant came to her door and threatened her.
The complainant’s testimony was impeached by the use of her prior inconsistent statements to the police. On the day of the incident, she gave a statement to Detective Frank Margerum in which she said: that when she entered the apartment building she saw appellant, whom she assumed to be the janitor; that she asked him if he could obtain a new name plate for her mail box, as someone had ripped hers off her box; that he said she should come down to his apartment and he would get her a new name plate; that she did, and there appellant grabbed her, held a gun on her, and forced her to commit sodomy. There were various other inconsistencies between the complainant’s testimony and her statement to Detective Margerum, and also between her testimony and a statement she gave the police on April 10, 1976, including whether the incident occurred on April 1 or April 5, 1976.
Appellant argues that the complainant’s testimony was so impaired by her prior inconsistent statements that the trial *555judge as a matter of law should have disbelieved her. So far as we are concerned, however, the question is not whether the trial judge should have disbelieved the complainant, but whether, the judge having believed her, we should say he was wrong. In answering this question, we must bear in mind that the trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of a witness; the trier’s finding will therefore not be disturbed unless it is based on evidence so unreliable or contradictory that we can say it is the result not of reason but conjecture. Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (1976); Commonwealth v. Smith, 457 Pa. 638, 326 A.2d 60 (1974). Here the trial judge found that “the essential point [is] that the complainant credibily [sic] testified in court as to the offense, whatever the date and any difference as to date was not here shown to be material.” Lower court’s opinion at 4. I acknowledge that given the complainant’s two considerably different versions of how the incident began, the judge’s restriction of the inconsistency problem to merely one of dates is somewhat troubling. Nevertheless, it is clear that as to the essential elements of the offenses charged — the use of force or threats, and the sexual assaults themselves — the judge found the complainant credible. I cannot say that her prior inconsistent statements were so closely related to these essential elements as to reduce the judge’s finding to a matter of conjecture. However, the prior inconsistent statements do show that the admission in evidence of the starter pistol was not harmless error. The complainant’s credibility was crucial to the case, and the pistol corroborated her. The assistant district attorney recognized this, for in his summary to the trial judge he argued:
If she [the complainant] would make up a story, as the Defense attorney alleges, the question we are left with is, how would she ever learn about the gun unless the gun was actually used on her?
N.T. at 102.
Thus the Commonwealth regarded the pistol as evidence that was essential to bolster the complainant’s credibility, *556impeached as she had been by her prior inconsistent statements. Error, to be harmless, must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 383 A.2d 155 (1978). That cannot be said here.5
The judgment of sentence should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

. The majority’s discussion goes beyond deciding this question, in two respects. First, the majority interprets United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976), as holding that a warrantless arrest may be made in one’s home on only probable cause; and second, the majority says that the rule recommended by the American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-arraignment Procedure should be adopted, and that under that rule, the arrest here was proper. Given the decision in Commonwealth v. Williams, supra, this discussion can only be regarded as dictum.

. “When law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe that an offense is taking place in their presence and that the suspect is at that moment in possession of the evidence, exigent circumstances exist.” United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 435, 96 S.Ct. 820, 833, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting.)

. See footnote 1, supra.

. I recognize that the majority says that “there existed ‘a likelihood that the suspect [would] escape if not swiftly apprehended.’ ” Majority slip opinion at 712. The majority, however, fails to offer any support for this statement, which suggests that the majority believes that the fact that a grave offense has been committed by itself can support a finding that there is a likelihood of escape. If this is the majority’s belief, it confuses “likelihood” with “possibility.” No doubt every felon knows he may be arrested. It is therefore possible that he will try to escape. It does not follow that it is likely that he will try to escape — and indeed, we know that many felons make no effort to escape, but return to their homes, and remain in their neighborhoods, until the police arrest them.

. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to decide whether the chain of custody to the pistol was insufficient, and whether the trial judge ■ erred in allowing the Commonwealth to amend the information at the time of trial to read that the offense occurred on April 1, rather than April 5, 1976.