Court Opinion

ID: 9761056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:30:23.654505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:19.839304
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
The purpose of the “knock and announce” rule is to permit a peaceful apprehension of the person and premises before applying force. Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 442 Pa. 553, 277 A.2d 159 (1971). The Fourth Amendment, however, must be applied under a standard of reasonableness. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963); Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326, 446 A.2d 583 (1982).
Drug busts are so inherently exigent as to product and dangerous as to the authorities that the police, once armed with a proper warrant, should be allowed to knock, announce and enter almost immediately. The reasonableness requirement should play in favor of the authorities because any delay enables drug pushers to dispose of evidence by flushing or similar means. The term “exigency” takes on a whole new meaning in reference to drug cases. Finally, the “Fourth Amendment cannot be interpreted to imperil law enforcement *510officers.” Stanley, 498 Pa. at 335, 446 A.2d at 587. To draw the kind of time line proposed by the majority would do just that.