Court Opinion

ID: 9872712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 21:12:32.787805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:13.475290
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
JUDGE COSGROVE
I take issue with the Majority’s view that the persuasive value of the unreported opinion in Altman v. Borough of Wilmerding, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1429 C.D. 2014, filed January 8, 2015), 2014 WL 2999703, trumps the binding precedent found in Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A2d 415 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 576 Pa. 726, 841 A.2d 533 (2003). The distinction the Majority makes between these two cases, and the reason for applying Altman’s rationale, is the presepce of an “occupant consent” provision in the code at *1153issue here (something not relevant in To-bin).
The essence of Tobin, however, was its emphasis on the importance of obtaining a warrant, even in the administrative context, while also noting the relative ease with which such administrative warrants may be secured, stating that “obtaining an administrative warrant should be a matter of routine.” Tobin, 828 A.2d at 423.
Routine as it may be, the warrant requirement is an essential check on unbridled governmental action, a check which is ever so slightly (but consequentially) eroded by the Majority opinion. As such, I must, respectfully, dissent.