Commonwealth v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1972
• Citation: 289 A.2d 733,223 Pa.Super. 83
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Janice JOHNSON.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

289 A.2d 733

223 Pa.Super. 83

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Janice JOHNSON.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

April 13, 1972.

James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., for Law Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Mozenter, Donald C. Marino, Marino & Mozenter Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.

WATKINS Judge.

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County, suppressing all items of evidence which resulted from a search of the premises of the defendant-appellee, Janice Johnson.

On the morning of August 15, 1970, the Philadelphia police, armed with a search and seizure warrant for a dwelling at 3100 J Mountain Drive, Philadelphia, arrived at the premises. The police had the premises under surveillance for approximately one-half hour when they observed a female approaching the residence.

Officer Green followed the woman to the front door and when it was opened by the defendant to allow her entry, he, having his badge in his left hand and the search warrant in his right hand, approached the door and identified himself as a police officer. He was in civilian clothes. He was about to announce his purpose to search the premises when the defendant, having observed him, attempted to slam the door in his face. The officer put his foot on the threshold to prevent the door from being closed, announced his purpose and entered the premises and executed the warrant after which a search of the premises was conducted.

The only question raised before us is whether or not the search and seizure was invalid because of the officer placing his foot on the threshold in order to prevent the slamming of the door and then announcing his purpose and entering the premises. The lower court relies on the recent cases of Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 442 Pa. 553, 277 A.2d 159 (1971); and Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 Pa. 441, 240 A.2d 795 (1968), where the results of the searches were suppressed holding that the entry was unreasonable and, therefore, the search unlawful.

All of the cases which have turned on the entry of the officers into the premises for the purpose of executing a search warrant are based on the reasonableness of the conduct of the officers and have set forth exceptions to the requirements that police officers announce their identity and purpose and await a reasonable time before forcing entry into the premises. These exceptions are: (1) Facts known to the police officers making them virtually certain that the occupants of the premises know their identity and purpose, thus making any announcement a 'useless gesture'; (2) Facts indicating the requirement if executed would cause palpable peril to the life and limb of police officers; (3) Facts known to the officers justifying a reasonable belief that evidence is about to be destroyed.

In Commonwealth v. Newman, supra, our Supreme Court held that police officers must make an announcement of purpose and...