Calling the police to report a burglary and theft of firearms was an invitation for them to come to the house, then he invited them in. This was implied consent to enter. Commonwealth v. Fredrick, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 266 (Mar. 31, 2020):
Here, Fredrick called the police to alert them to the possibility that a large cache of firearms had been stolen from his mobile home and turned loose on the streets. Fredrick informed Sergeant Bosco that he had no way of verifying whether his trailer had been burglarized or whether the firearms were secure. He repeatedly told Sergeant Bosco that the firearms should have been located under the mattress in the middle bedroom, and he repeatedly expressed fears that the weapons would be used to harm innocent people. At the time Fredrick initially contacted the police, he represented himself as a victim, and the police had no reason to suspect that he was involved in any criminal activity. Thus, we find that the police acted pursuant to his valid consent. See Witman, supra at 331-37.
Regarding the scope of Fredrick’s consent, we find that, undoubtedly, “a reasonable person would have understood” that Fredrick requested police assistance in safeguarding the firearms under his mattress, which necessarily entailed entry into his mobile home and, specifically, his bedroom. See Reid, supra. Tellingly, when Sergeant Bosco called Fredrick to report that the guns were missing, Fredrick did not object to Sergeant Bosco’s presence inside the mobile home; instead, Fredrick continued to cooperate with Sergeant Bosco and, unprompted, revealed to Sergeant Bosco that he was a person not to possess firearms. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Fredrick’s implied consent for Sergeant Bosco to enter his home and verify whether his firearms were stolen was the result of anything other than Fredrick’s unfettered free will and his justifiable concern for the safety of others.