PA: Nighttime entry onto the curtilage and then into the home for a stolen firearm wasn’t justified by exigency

Nighttime entry onto the curtilage and then into the home for a stolen firearm wasn’t justified by exigency. Suppression ordered. Commonwealth v. Bowmaster, 2014 PA Super 199, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2906 (September 17, 2014):

In this case, a balancing of the Roland factors outlined above demonstrates a lack of exigency for a warrantless search of Appellant’s property. Assuming the gravity of the offense of possession of a potentially stolen gun is high, the officers had no reason to believe the occupants of the home were aware of the officers’ presence such that destruction of evidence, escape, or violence was imminent. More importantly, the time of day of the warrantless search weighs heavily in favor of Appellant’s contention that the officers should have obtained a search warrant.

. . .

Instantly, there was no exigency or urgency established by the testimony presented that would support the Commonwealth’s argument that this search could not wait until morning or until a warrant was procured. The record does not indicate when the Karchner’s home was burglarized, or by whom, just that Karchner’s son reported to her that an allegedly stolen gun was located in a shed on Appellant’s property. Though the tip and belief that Appellant is in possession of a firearm arguably provide probable cause to search the shed, and possibly Appellant’s home, these factors do not outweigh the reality that no exigency existed to justify a warrantless nighttime search. Contrary to the Commonwealth’s argument, the alleged observations of Trooper Mincer through the window cannot support the original search for the firearm, nor do they negate the officers’ illegal entry onto Appellant’s property.

As we have found that Appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of his home and the Commonwealth has failed to show exigent circumstances, we conclude that the troopers were required to obtain a search warrant before engaging in an investigation onto the curtilage of Appellant’s property in the middle of the night. By failing to do so, they violated Appellant’s constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As a result, the entry by police onto Appellant’s property was illegal and all evidence seized in violation of his constitutional rights should have been suppressed.