Court Opinion

ID: 9412028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 18:11:23.13878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:26.116255
License: Public Domain

J-A06037-22

                                   2023 PA Super 136

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  MICHAEL GOODIS                               :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 701 WDA 2021

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 8, 2021
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001278-2017

BEFORE:      MURRAY, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

CONCURRING OPINION BY SULLIVAN, J.:                FILED: July 28, 2023

       After careful consideration of the record and the narrowly-construed

case law regarding the “knock and announce rule” and its exceptions, I am

constrained to join the majority opinion because the Commonwealth’s

evidence did not strictly comply with the rule or neatly fit into its carved-out

exceptions. However, I write separately to emphasize that the actions of the

law enforcement officers in serving the warrant in this case complied with the

general principles of the rule by balancing Goodis’s privacy interests and the

officers’ personal safety concerns in a situation where the officers perceived a

legitimate safety risk. This balance is borne out by six videos from Goodis’s

own security cameras which were admitted by stipulation at the suppression

hearing. See N.T. 7/20/18, at 6, Exhibit A, Videos 1-6.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06037-22

      This Court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact so long as they

are supported by the record, but it reviews questions of law de novo. See

Commonwealth v. McMahon, 280 A.3d 1069, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(citing Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 159 A.3d 503, 506 (Pa. 2017). When

the Commonwealth prevails at the suppression hearing, the Court may only

consider the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for

the defense as remains uncontradicted. See id. The Court’s scope of review

is limited to the suppression hearing record. See id.

      The knock and announce rule requires that before entering a dwelling

to execute a search warrant police must announce their identity, purpose, and

authority and give the occupant a reasonable period of time after the

announcement to admit them, absent exigent circumstances that require

immediate forcible entry.     See Pa.R.Crim.P. 207; Commonwealth v.

Frederick, 124 A.3d 748, 754-56 (Pa. Super. 2015).          The rule seeks to

prevent resistance by an occupant to protect his privacy, prevent violence and

physical injury to police and occupants, protect an occupant’s privacy

expectation, and prevent property damage resulting from forced entry.     See

Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 146 (Pa. 1997).                 Exigent

circumstances permitting non-compliance with the knock and announce rule

include situations where the police have reason to believe that an

announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety. See Frederick, 124

                                     -2-
J-A06037-22

A.3d at 755.      The remedy for a knock and announce violation is always

suppression. See id.

       As Goodis’s own surveillance videos establish, his house is in a rural

area and Officers David Lepovsky and Brian Sadlowe, and Lieutenant Robert

Jones, who went to Goodis’s house to execute the search warrant needed

thirty seconds to walk a long pathway from the street to the house in full view

of Goodis’s security cameras. See Exhibit A, Video 1 at 0:00-0:30. A separate

video shows that before approaching the front door, the law enforcement

officers conducted a search of the perimeter of the house and garage. See

Exhibit A, Video 2 at 0:00-0:56. Officer Lepovsky testified that none of the

officers saw any evidence to suggest that anyone was in the house. See N.T.,

7/20/18, at 9-11.1

____________________________________________

1 The police exercise of caution before approaching the house comported with

the protection of both Goodis and the officers, who face an increasing risk of
ambushes from citizens particularly when they go to serve arrest or search
warrants          at         citizens’        residences.                 See
https://cbsnews.com/philadelphia/james-oconnor-hassan-elliott-
philadelphia-police-swat-officer-shot-and-killed-while-serving-warrant-in-
frankford/ (last viewed July 20, 2023) (reporting that Philadelphia Police
Officer was killed while serving warrant at suspect’s home);
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/gilroy-police-officer-involved-
fatal-shooting-ambush-wanted-attempted-murder/ (last viewed July 20,
2023) (reporting that a man called police purportedly to surrender on an
attempted murder charge, then opened fire on an officer who arrived at the
address       to      which         he     had        summoned        police);
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local crime/article248942479.html
(last viewed July 20, 2023) (reporting that two FBI agents attempting to
execute a search warrant were killed when a gunman opened fire from inside
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-A06037-22

       Another third video shows that in apparent response to a knock, Goodis

looked at the kitchen door window toward the three officers, who stood in the

sunlight. Goodis, who was wearing a shirt, held up his right finger signaling

the officers to wait and disappeared from the officers’ view. See Exhibit A,

Video 4 at 0:08-0:10, N.T. 7/20/18, at 12. Officer Lepovsky opened the

unlocked door and from outside the house and stated, “Hey, Buddy, are you

alright?”   Goodis stated, “Yeah, I’m good,” and returned to the uniformed

officer’s line of vision. Still outside the house, Officer Lepovsky said, “Hey

come here, come out here and talk to me.” See id. at 0:10-0:16. Goodis

again held up his finger, said something inaudible, and again disappeared from

the officer’s sight. See id. at 0:12-0:18.

       Officer Lepovsky said, “Okay, alright,” he drew his gun, pointed it at the

ground, and slowly took four steps toward the kitchen.              Goodis put on

sweatpants.     See id. at 0:17-0:22.          Officer Lepovsky asked, “Are you by

yourself?” Goodis returned to the officer’s line of sight and answered, “Yes.”

With his gun still pointed down, Officer Lepovsky said, “I don’t like, I don’t like

it when you walk away from me, you know what I mean? I see you holding

up one finger and then you walk away.” Goodis took two steps toward the

officer. See id. at 0:23-0:31.

____________________________________________

his home having monitored the approach of agents with a doorbell camera
and shot them through the unopened door with an assault rifle).

                                           -4-
J-A06037-22

      Officer Lepovsky kept his gun pointed at the ground, gestured for Goodis

to join him, backed up, and said, “Come on out here, I’m going to put this

back here,” referring to his gun, and asked, “What’s your . . . name” as he

stepped outside of the house and replaced his gun in its holster.       Goodis

followed him and answered, “Michael.”      See id. at 0:31-0:36.     As Goodis

reached the door, Officer Lepovsky introduced himself from outside the

residence.   See id. at 0:36-0:38. Officer Sadlowe and Lieutenant Jones

introduced themselves and Lieutenant Jones answered Goodis’s questioning

about how he was doing by saying, “Good. I’m here because I have a search

warrant for your residence today.”     Goodis answered, “Okay.”      Lieutenant

Jones stated, “I’ll let you read everything. You’re not under arrest at this

point.” See id. at 0:46-0:49.

      Plainly, Officer Lepovsky never aimed his gun at Goodis and once the

safety concern of Goodis’s disappearances from his sight dissipated, the officer

backed up, put his gun away, and left the house, leading to a discussion at

the door among Goodis and the three officers without any search having taken

place. After the conversation at the doorway, Goodis is seen ushering the

police into the house and showing them a computer in a backpack at the

kitchen table. See Exhibit A, Videos 5 and 6. Tellingly, there is no show of

force and the conduct appears entirely consensual. However, although I agree

with the trial court that an overly technical approach to the knock and

announce rule is inadvisable where the police conduct is reasonable and the

                                     -5-
J-A06037-22

purpose of the rule has not been offended, that is not the law. Here, testifying

more than two years after the event, none of the officers could say with

certainty that they had announced their identity and purpose prior to entry2

and Officer Lepovsky did not have a pre-existing safety concern, and that is

what the current case law focuses on.3

       The exclusionary rule is intended to deter illegal police conduct and

protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. See United States v.

Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (Pa. 1974); Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586

A.2d 887, 899 (Pa. 1991). Those purposes are not furthered by the result in

this case.    I agree with the trial court’s assessment that the police had a

legitimate concern for their safety, see Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/18, at 5. We

should not have the strict letter of the rule swallow up good, commonsense

responses to law enforcement’s legitimate safety concerns, but the case law

____________________________________________

2 The microphone from Video 4 did not fully capture sounds made outside the

house while the door was closed.

3  Notably, the videos from Goodis’s own security cameras contradict his
suppression hearing testimony that he emerged naked from his shower and
saw people standing outside, and did not have any clothing on, and further
that he walked to his left into the kitchen upon seeing the police “to at least
get a t-shirt and some boxers on, and before I . . .. Before I was able to do
anything, I was basically being held point blank at gunpoint in my kitchen.”
See N.T., 1/29/18, at 22-23 (intervening question omitted). Exhibit A Videos
3 and 4 show that Goodis was not naked at the time of the police entry but
wore a shirt, boxer shorts, and socks. Further, footage from Video 4 shows
that Goodis was not “basically being held point blank at gunpoint” in his
kitchen; Officer Lepovsky kept his gun pointed to the ground at all times. See
Video 4 at 0:17-0:36.

                                           -6-
J-A06037-22

in this area is clear enough to warrant reversal despite my reticence. Because

the case law concerning the safety exception in knock and announce cases is

well developed in this Commonwealth and the facts here do not comply with

the narrow exception, I concur in the majority opinion.

                                    -7-