knock and announce rule in Pennsylvania

2023The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress the NAS and other items seized from his house in that search and evidence derived from the NAS was therefore error. “[T]he remedy for noncompliance with the knock and announce rule is always suppression.” Crompton, 682 A.2d at 290; Frederick, 124 A.3d at 755 (quoting Crompton) (emphasis omitted).

2023The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress the NAS and other items seized from his house in that search and evidence derived from the NAS was therefore error. “[T]he remedy for noncompliance with the knock and announce rule is always suppression.” Crompton, 682 A.2d at 290 ; Frederick, 124 A.3d at 755 (quoting Crompton) (emphasis omitted).

2023The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress the NAS and other items seized from his house in that search and evidence derived from the NAS was therefore error. “[T]he remedy for noncompliance with the knock and announce rule is always suppression.” Crompton, 682 A.2d at 290; Frederick, 124 A.3d at 755 (quoting Crompton) (emphasis omitted).

2023The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress the NAS and other items seized from his house in that search and evidence derived from the NAS was therefore error. “[T]he remedy for noncompliance with the knock and announce rule is always suppression.” Crompton, 682 A.2d at 290 ; Frederick, 124 A.3d at 755 (quoting Crompton) (emphasis omitted).

2015Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 147 (Pa. 1997) (citations and some quotations marks omitted). 11 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 10 - J-S38023-15 Commonwealth v. C

2005Accordingly, in evaluating an officer’s compliance with a knock-and-announce rule we look only to the facts and circumstances with which the officers are faced at the time they make their decisions and act on them. ¶ 8 Appellant cites to Commonwealth v. Means, 531 Pa. 504 , 614 A.2d 220 (1992), in support of his argument that the police failed to wait a reasonable period of time before forcibly entering.

2023See Commonwealth v. Parsons, 391 Pa.Super. 273 , 570 A.2d 1328 (1990) (two announcements of presence coupled with a 45 second wait prior to entry by officers, where sounds of -7- J-A10018-23 movement were heard inside residence was sufficient to satisfy the knock and announce rule); Commonwealth v. Burstin, 259 Pa.Super. 584 , 393 A.2d 979 (1978) (police who waited twenty seconds after knocking and announcing during which time they heard television and telephone conversations prior to gaining entry was reasonable under the knock and announce rule).

2023See Commonwealth v. Parsons, 391 Pa.Super. 273 , 570 A.2d 1328 (1990) (two announcements of presence coupled with a 45 second wait prior to entry by officers, where sounds of -7- J-A10018-23 movement were heard inside residence was sufficient to satisfy the knock and announce rule); Commonwealth v. Burstin, 259 Pa.Super. 584 , 393 A.2d 979 (1978) (police who waited twenty seconds after knocking and announcing during which time they heard television and telephone conversations prior to gaining entry was reasonable under the knock and announce rule).

2015Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 147 (Pa. 1997) (citations and some quotations marks omitted). 11 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 10 - J-S38023-15 Commonwealth v. C

1998Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 403, 403 , 598 A.2d 539, 541 (1991). 7 The facts of *802 this ease indicate that the conduct of the police officers falls within the second exception to the knock and announce rule. 8 The goal sought to be achieved by the knock and announce rale is to alert the occupant to the presence of a person at the door and inform the occupant of that person’s identity and purpose, thus allowing the opportunity for peaceful surrender of the premises without danger to officers and occupants or damage to the property.

2020To determine whether suppression is appropriate based on a violation of the knock and announce rule, “police conduct must be examined in light of the Fourth Amendment, which mandates that police [act] reasonabl[y].” Id. -7- J-S09020-20 at 491.

2019The court cites Commonwealth v. Kane, 940 A.2d 483, 492 (Pa.Super. 2007), for the proposition that “where the purpose of the rule has not been offended and where police conduct is reasonable, suppression will not be granted based upon an overly-technical approach to the knock and announce rule.” Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/17, at 8.

2007Commonwealth v. Morgan, 517 Pa. 93, 97 , 534 A.2d 1054, 1056-57 (1987) (citations omitted). ¶21 The Commonwealth first suggests that police did not have to comply at all with the knock and announce rule with respect to entry from the residence into the warehouse.

2007Commonwealth v. Morgan, 517 Pa. 93, 97 , 534 A.2d 1054, 1056-57 (1987) (citations omitted). ¶21 The Commonwealth first suggests that police did not have to comply at all with the knock and announce rule with respect to entry from the residence into the warehouse.

2015Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 147 (Pa. 1997) (citations and some quotations marks omitted). 11 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 10 - J-S38023-15 Commonwealth v. C

2015Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143, 147 (Pa. 1997) (citations and some quotations marks omitted). 11 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 10 - J-S38023-15 Commonwealth v. C

2021Commonwealth v. Walker, 874 A.2d 667, 673 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).

2008Moreover, Pennsylvania case law states that the purpose of the knock and announce rule is to “prevent violence and physical injury to the police and occupants, to protect an occupant’s privacy expectation against the unauthorized entry of unknown persons, and to prevent property damage resulting from forced entry.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 874 A.2d 667, 671 (Pa. Super. 2005).

1997Accord Commonwealth v. McDonel, 411 Pa.Super. 187 , 601 A.2d 302 (1991). ■In the present case, however, the Commonwealth is not asking us to sanction a “drug dealer” exception to the knock and announce rule.

1997Accord Commonwealth v. McDonel, 411 Pa.Super. 187 , 601 A.2d 302 (1991). ■In the present case, however, the Commonwealth is not asking us to sanction a “drug dealer” exception to the knock and announce rule.

2021Our ____________________________________________ 13 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 15 - J-S08013-21 Supreme Court has determined that “the remedy for noncompliance with

2021Our ____________________________________________ 13 Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057 , 1059 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”). - 15 - J-S08013-21 Supreme Court has determined that “the remedy for noncompliance with

2015There are exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement “for situations presenting risks of physical violence . . . and where announcement would be futile.” Id.

2007Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 589 Pa. 43, 63 , 907 A.2d 477, 489 (2006). ¶ 19 There are exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement “for situations presenting risks of physical violence ... and where announcement would be futile.” Id.

2021We explained the knock and announce rule in Commonwealth v. Frederick, 124 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 138 A.3d 2 (Pa. 2016): Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 207 codifies the “knock and announce” rule: (A) A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall, before entry, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of the officer’s identity, authority, and purpose to any occupant of the premises specified in the warrant, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry.[10] (B) Such officer shall await a response for a reasonable per

2021We explained the knock and announce rule in Commonwealth v. Frederick, 124 A.3d 748 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 138 A.3d 2 (Pa. 2016): Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 207 codifies the “knock and announce” rule: (A) A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall, before entry, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of the officer’s identity, authority, and purpose to any occupant of the premises specified in the warrant, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry.[10] (B) Such officer shall await a response for a reasonable per

2015See Commonwealth v. Rachak, 62 A.3d 389 , 391 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2012) (“When a guilty plea is entered, all grounds of appeal are waived other than challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.”), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 699 , 67 A.3d 796 (2013). .Appellant does not argue that the violation of the knock and announce rule implicates any rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2015See Commonwealth v. Rachak, 62 A.3d 389 , 391 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2012) (“When a guilty plea is entered, all grounds of appeal are waived other than challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and the jurisdiction of the sentencing court.”), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 699 , 67 A.3d 796 (2013). .Appellant does not argue that the violation of the knock and announce rule implicates any rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2007Id. at 176-77, 516 A.2d at 330-31 . ¶ 25 The McDonnell Court held that in order to assess whether suppression is appropriate based on a knock and announce violation, police conduct must be examined in light of the Fourth Amendment, which mandates that police be reasonable.

2007Id. at 178 , 516 A.2d at 331 (citation omitted). ¶ 26 More recently, our Supreme Court refused to grant suppression based on a violation of the knock and announce rule with respect to execution of a search warrant at a boarding house.

2023Crompton, 682 A.2d at 287, 290 (suppressing evidence where police entered house through unlocked screen door without complying with knock and announce rule); Frederick, 124 A.3d at 752-53 , 754 n.8, 756- - 13 - J-A06037-22 57 (suppressing evidence where police opened door simply by pushing on it without damaging it and did not announce who they were or their purpose until after door was open); Commonwealth v. Douventzidis, 679 A.2d 795 , 796, 798-800 (Pa. Super. 1996) (suppressing evidence where front door was partially open and police entered by opening a screen door without complying with kn

2023Crompton, 682 A.2d at 287, 290; Frederick, 124 A.3d at 752-53 , 754 n.8, 756-57; Douventzidis, 679 A.2d at 796, 798-800 .

1997See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326 , 446 A.2d 583 (1982) (police entitled to depart from knock and announce rule where an individual informed them that he saw suspect with a gun approximately one hour prior to execution of search warrant); Commonwealth v. Norris, 498 Pa. 308 , 446 A.2d 246 (1982) (forcible entry by police after announcement of authority but without an express announcement of purpose was justified, because alleged victim of crime had informed them that the suspect was carrying a knife); Commonwealth v. Feflie, 398 Pa.Super. 622 , 581 A.2d 636 (1990) (police entertained re

1997See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326 , 446 A.2d 583 (1982) (police entitled to depart from knock and announce rule where an individual informed them that he saw suspect with a gun approximately one hour prior to execution of search warrant); Commonwealth v. Norris, 498 Pa. 308 , 446 A.2d 246 (1982) (forcible entry by police after announcement of authority but without an express announcement of purpose was justified, because alleged victim of crime had informed them that the suspect was carrying a knife); Commonwealth v. Feflie, 398 Pa.Super. 622 , 581 A.2d 636 (1990) (police entertained re

2020Id. at 792-93 (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Dial, 285 A.2d 125, 127 (Pa. 1971) (“when [officers] heard the sounds of running and the door was not opened, they were warranted in thinking that they were refused admittance and that an effort was underway to destroy evidence”); Commonwealth v. Dean, 693 A.3d 1360 (Pa. Super. 1997) (officers with specific, articulable reason to believe exigent circumstances exist are justified in departing from knock and announce rule).

2020Beard, supra; Dean, supra; Dial, supra. Accordingly, the suppression court properly denied Johnson’s suppression motion.

2013Id. at 161.

1991Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 442 Pa. 553 , 277 A.2d 159 (1971).

1997See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326 , 446 A.2d 583 (1982) (police entitled to depart from knock and announce rule where an individual informed them that he saw suspect with a gun approximately one hour prior to execution of search warrant); Commonwealth v. Norris, 498 Pa. 308 , 446 A.2d 246 (1982) (forcible entry by police after announcement of authority but without an express announcement of purpose was justified, because alleged victim of crime had informed them that the suspect was carrying a knife); Commonwealth v. Feflie, 398 Pa.Super. 622 , 581 A.2d 636 (1990) (police entertained re

1997See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326 , 446 A.2d 583 (1982) (police entitled to depart from knock and announce rule where an individual informed them that he saw suspect with a gun approximately one hour prior to execution of search warrant); Commonwealth v. Norris, 498 Pa. 308 , 446 A.2d 246 (1982) (forcible entry by police after announcement of authority but without an express announcement of purpose was justified, because alleged victim of crime had informed them that the suspect was carrying a knife); Commonwealth v. Feflie, 398 Pa.Super. 622 , 581 A.2d 636 (1990) (police entertained re