Court Opinion

ID: 9649602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:03:03.533463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:13.011411
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
KELLY, J.:
¶ 1 The police officers sought entry into' Appellant’s apartment because they observed a sandwich bag with a twisted end which in their experience was used to contain controlled substances. However, they saw nothing more. Therefore, at that time, although they lacked a warrant or probable cause to search Appellant’s apartment, the focus of their investigation had clearly shifted from finding Mr. Oquendo, to investigating Appellant. Nevertheless, the police officers, in full uniform and displaying their “badge of authority,” under the ruse of discussing the whereabouts of Mr. Oquendo in private, obtained his permission to enter.
¶2 The learned majority’s affirmance relies heavily on the voluntary consent of Appellant to the entry of the police into his apartment. (See Majority Opinion, at 885-87). However, for consent to an otherwise illegal search to be valid, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, and voluntary. It is only where there is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege that an effective waiver can be found. The subject of a search must be made aware of his rights against a warrantless search for a waiver to be intelligent. See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 536 Pa. 123, 638 A.2d 203, 207 (1994).
¶ 3 Here, Appellant’s consent could not have been intelligent or voluntary, as it was obtained under the false pretext of the search for Oquendo, with a show of authority by two armed, uniformed police officers. Furthermore, when the police entered Officer Fisher stood inside the room, and Officer Gebhard stood behind him “in the open doorway just like right inside the threshold.” (Majority at 883). Two policemen stood between Appellant and his door; he could reasonably infer he was not free to go. Therefore, at the time the police entered and blocked Appellant’s exit, he was effectively in police custody and should have received Miranda warnings.
¶ 4 Because I conclude that Appellant’s consent to the search and investigation was not knowing or voluntary, and his statements were made without the benefit of receiving Miranda warnings, I believe *892the evidence and the statements should have been suppressed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.