Com. v. Manduchi
| Decision Date | 19 March 1964 |
| Citation | 198 A.2d 613,203 Pa.Super. 373 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Richard Joseph MANDUCHI, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Donald J. Goldberg, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Wilson Bucher, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Columbia, Alfred C. Alspach, Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P. J., and ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY and FLOOD, JJ.
On this appeal the defendant questions (1) the admission in evidence against him of material obtained by detectives, armed with a warrant to search his residence, who broke through the doors of his apartment without announcing their authority and purpose and (2) the correctness of the trial judge's statement of the issue in his charge to the jury.
1. The police officers who went to the defendant's apartment to execute the search warrant found the door locked. The first officer to reach the door knocked and heard a 'scuffling' noise inside. Without waiting for any further response to the knock he broke open the door with a sledge hammer. There was another door to the apartment which other officers broke through by using a section of a telephone pole. Upon the ensuing search the officers seized certain material which was admitted into evidence over timely objection and motion to suppress.
We find no Pennsylvania appellate cases which discuss or determine the circumstances under which police officers armed with a warrant may break into a private dwelling place without first announcing their purpose and giving the occupants a chance to admit them. Each case depends upon its own circumstances. The circumstances surrounding the search and seizure in this case are not such as to make it unreasonable as a matter of law.
Detective Williams testified that he was first up the steps. He said, 'I tried the door, it appeared to be locked; I knocked; I stepped back heard a little scuffle; and I had the sledge hammer up and I hit the door twice * * * On the second blow the door flew open.' He did not wait for anyone to open the door. When the detectives entered the apartment they observed the defendant and two other persons. The defendant put a piece of paper in his mouth and swallowed it. A considerable amount of material was found which could be used in carrying on gambling operations.
There was ample ground for the issuance of the search warrant under which the search was made. There was also reason for the detectives to believe that the occupants of the apartment would try to destroy any number slips in their possession if they had warning of the raid. No authority is cited which requires an announcement of the officers' purpose before they entered pursuant to the authority of a warrant. Whether such an announcement should be made must be determined in the light of all the facts. The officer's conduct was not unreasonable. Under the circumstances we cannot say that the court erred in admitting the evidence obtained as a result of this search.
2. While the information upon which the defendant was held for the grand jury charged that he [did] 'engage in bookmaking and occupy a place with books, apparatus and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanchez, 10559
...(2nd Cir. 1964); People v. Arnold, 527 P.2d 806 (Colo.1974); Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518, 204 A.2d 516 (1964); Commonwealth v. Manduchi, 203 Pa.Super. 373, 198 A.2d 613 (1964); Heaton v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 137, 207 S.E.2d 829 (1974); Whisnant v. State, 303 So.2d 398 The decision of the ......
-
Henson v. State
...thereby, include People v. Villanueva Dist. Ct. App., 2nd Dist. Div. 2, 220 Cal.App.2d 443, 33 Cal.Rptr. 811, and Commonwealth v. Manduchi, 203 Pa.Super. 373, 198 A.2d 613. Also see, for a case where the defendant was caught in the act of destroying evidence, People v. Shelton Dist. Ct. App......
-
People v. Lujan
...v. State, 3 Md.App., 379, 239 A.2d 596 (1968); State v. Juliano, 97 N.J.Super. 28, 234 A.2d 236 (1967). See Commonwealth v. Manduchi, 230 Pa.Super. 373, 198 A.2d 613 (1964). As one commentator has '(I)t would seem that the perfection of small firearms and the development of indoor plumbing ......
-
Com. v. Newman
... ... § 3109: 'The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant if, after notice of his authority and [429 Pa. 445] purpose, he is refused admittance, * * *.' 1 In Commonwealth v. Manduchi, 203 Pa.Super. 373, 375, 198 A.2d 613, 614 (1964), the detective tried the door, found it to be locked, knocked, heard a 'scuffling noise', and without giving anyone inside the apartment the opportunity to open the door, and without announcing his authority and purpose, proceeded to break open the ... ...