Com. v. Baker
| Decision Date | 19 March 1987 |
| Citation | 361 Pa.Super. 401,522 A.2d 643 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Bradley R. BAKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
L. Edward Glass, Johnstown, for appellant.
David Flower, Asst. Dist. Atty., Somerset, for Com., appellee.
Before ROWLEY, POPOVICH and JOHNSON, JJ.
This case is on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to resolve the remaining issues left open by this panel's initial decision to suppress a warrant for "staleness", a decision which was reversed on appeal. Commonwealth v. Baker, --- Pa. ---, 518 A.2d 802 (1986).
The first issue we shall address concerns Baker's contention that the court below erred in hearing the testimony of an individual (Agent Todoric), other than the affiant on the search warrant, in considering whether probable cause for its issuance existed. This testimony, argues the defendant, "was so exhaustive as to sufficiently taint [sic] the entire proceeding[.]" And, albeit not articulated by the defendant, this would necessitate a suppression of the evidence consisting of forty items of drugs and related paraphernalia as reflected in the receipt/inventory of seized property form. We disagree.
To start with, notwithstanding the testimony of Agent Todoric, the two affiants whose names appear on the face of the application for the search warrant, i.e., Detective Berkebile and Agent Lemon, testified before the court below to supplying the magistrate with all of the information contained in the warrant and affidavit. Their accounting, in and of itself, would be sufficient to establish the sufficiency of information presented to the magistrate to uphold the validity of the warrant. As for the claim by the defendant that the proceedings before the suppression court were somehow infected with the testimony of one not an affiant to the warrant, and not appearing before the magistrate, is unconvincing when analogized to the law relating to the treatment of prejudicial evidence heard by a judge presiding over a criminal case.
In this Commonwealth, the courts have treated such a claim of prejudice by first examining the judge's remarks as to any disclaimer, e.g., "he disregarded the defendant's prior criminal record in reaching a conclusion as to guilt." See Commonwealth v. Brown, 328 Pa.Super. 215, 476 A.2d 969 (1984). The reason is that a judge, as a factfinder, is presumed to disregard inadmissible evidence and consider only competent evidence in making his decision. Commonwealth v. Glover, 266 Pa.Super. 531, 405 A.2d 945 (1979); McCormick on Evidence § 60 (2d Ed.1972). Thus, we have held that a trial court's express statement at a post-verdict motions hearing negating any affect the evidence of the appellant's arrests may have had on the verdict was sufficient to purge the taint of the questioned evidence. See Commonwealth v. Guest, 500 Pa. 393, 398, 456 A.2d 1345, 1348 (1983); Brown, supra.
A fortiori, we see no reason not to extend the same rationale to a defendant's claim of error occurring during the course of a suppression hearing.
Instantly, the court below specifically discounted the testimony of Agent Todoric as a factor in reaching its conclusion in finding the warrant valid and the evidence seized as a result thereof admissible at trial. It did so in footnote 4 of its opinion to us; viz.:
At the suppression hearing, an individual testified, Agent Steven Todoric, who was not present at the magistrate's office at the time the search warrant was issued and thus gave no sworn information in support of the warrant. However, at the time of the testimony at the hearing, the court was under the mistaken impression that he indeed was present and disclosed the information to the magistrate that he disclosed at the hearing. Since this was not the situation, his testimony cannot be used and was not used, in the decision of this motion.
Given the suppression court's disclaimer, we have no hesitancy in holding that the defendant's initial claim to be meritless. See Brown, supra.
The defendant's last protestation, as to the alleged failure of the police to announce their identity and purpose prior to executing the search warrant, is no more persuasive than his previous argument.
The facts reveal that at approximately 4:30 p.m. on the 12th of March, 1981, Detective Berkebile, Agents Lemon and Caroff of the Bureau of Drug Control and two patrol officers arrived at the defendant's residence. The police "knocked on the door and received no response." This caused the police to stand on the defendant's porch and discuss among themselves what they should do. During this hiatus, the police started conversing with some of the youngsters nearby. At this time, the defendant's brother came upon the scene. As Detective Berkebile recalls it:
We talked to him. We explained the reason why we were there, that we had a search warrant for his brother's mobile home. And he said that he would get a key and leave [sic] us in.
Approximately one-half hour after the search began, the defendant arrived and was informed of the purpose of the police activities. Following the search and seizure of contraband, the defendant was arrested and ultimately charged with the offenses which are the subject of his appeal.
As to the execution of the warrant, Detective Berkebile testified that Officer Grattan knocked on the defendant's door several times without securing a response. Although Detective Berkebile conceded that no one in the search team announced, "Police, open up", he did go on to recount being informed by the youngsters and the defendant's brother at the scene that the defendant was not at home. They waited a half-hour before the brother's arrival.
Counsel for the defendant would have us apply the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 2007 (Knock and Announce Rule) 1 with such rigidity that we disregard the admonition that police are not required to comply with the formalities of procedural due process when to do so would be a "useless act". 2 We believe the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 3109 )3, which requires announcement of authority and refusal prior to forcible entry, is similar to our Rule 2007 in that both seek to 1.) prevent violence and physical injury to the police and the occupants; 2.) prevent unnecessary invasion of individual privacy; and 3.) prevent the needless destruction of private property. See Commonwealth v. Duncan, 257 Pa.Super. 277, 285-86, 390 A.2d 820, 825 (1978), citing United States v. Bustamante-Gamez, 488 F.2d 4, 9-10 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 970, 97 S.Ct. 1993, 40 L.Ed.2d 559 (1974); see also United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir.1984). We look to it for some guidance.
Section 3109, when it comes to unoccupied dwellings, has been held to be inapposite on the basis that it is futile to require the authorities to knock and announce their identity and purpose and wait for a refusal of entry from someone who is not there. See Payne v. United States, 508 F.2d 1391, 1393-94 (5th Cir.1975) cert. denied, 423 U.S. 933, 96 S.Ct. 287, 46 L.Ed.2d 263 (1975); United States v. LaMonte, 455 F.Supp. 952 (E.D.Pa.1978).
Instantly, the police were informed by children in the vicinity and the defendant's own brother that he was not at home. In fact, the brother elaborated that the defendant had gone with his parents somewhere and he (the brother) would get the key to let the officers into the mobile home.
Based on the preceding, the entry of the police without complying with the knock and announce requirements of Rule 2007 was not at odds with or violative of the objectives sought to be attained by the Rule's implementation, i.e., protection of privacy, mitigation of violence and prevention of needless destruction of property by forced entry. None of these was being compromised under the facts here.
In Commonwealth v. Wallace, 293 Pa.Super. 73, 437 A.2d 996 (1981), cited by the defendant in support of his contention that the police's conduct was reprehensible and constitutionally infirm, "[t]he police officers did not know that [the defendant] was away from his apartment until they entered and searched it." 293 Pa.Super. at 76-77, 437 A.2d at 998. Such was not the case at bar.
As for the other case proffered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Righter v. State
...under the Fourth Amendment and that an unannounced police entry may still be reasonable. 28 Righter's reliance on Baker is also misplaced. In Baker, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether the police had to comply with a Pennsylvania "knock and announce" statute when ......
-
Com. v. Balliet
...knock and announce their identity and purpose and wait for a refusal of entry from someone who is not there. See Commonwealth v. Baker, 361 Pa.Super. 401, 522 A.2d 643 (1987). The simple fact that there was no response to their knock, however, is insufficient to establish a dweller's absenc......