PA: Unlawful entry justified suppressing the drugs but not the fact of the assault on the officers

The officers’ entry into defendant’s home was illegal and the drug evidence should have been suppressed. Defendant’s assault on the officers, however, would not be suppressed because it was a separate crime. Commonwealth v. Schneider, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 775 (Sept. 9, 2020):

We agree with the Commonwealth that the officers’ entry into Appellant’s home, albeit illegal, did “not give Appellant a free pass to commit the assaults he did upon the officers,” and that Appellant’s actions in this regard “constituted a new tree of criminal conduct.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 23. While we certainly do not condone the officers’ unconstitutional entry of Appellant’s home, we also cannot condone Appellant’s surprise attack on Lieutenant Love, or his combative response when the officers tried to subdue him. Appellant’s conduct was not in response to Lieutenant Love’s exploiting the illegality of his presence in Appellant’s home. Accordingly, the lieutenant’s and Officer Deloe’s testimony about Appellant’s actions was not suppressible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

On the other hand, the drugs and paraphernalia found by Officer Deloe were at least indirectly tied to the officers’ illegal entry of Appellant’s home. For instance, had Appellant’s assault of the officers and subsequent arrest happened on his porch, Officer Deloe would have never been inside Appellant’s home to see the drugs and paraphernalia in plain view. Thus, it was only due to Lieutenant Love’s initial illegal entry that Officer Deloe ultimately observed the drugs and paraphernalia in the area where the scuffle between the officers and Appellant occurred. Therefore, the drugs and paraphernalia should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree of the officers’ unconstitutional entry of Appellant’s residence.

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred by finding that Lieutenant Love lawfully entered Appellant’s home. Because that warrantless entry was illegal for the reasons set forth supra, the drugs and paraphernalia seized from Appellant’s residence should have been suppressed. The testimony concerning Appellant’s assault on the officers, however, was admissible, as Appellant’s actions separated his conduct from the initial illegal entry by police. Nevertheless, we agree with Appellant that he was prejudiced by the jury’s being informed that the officers were lawfully inside his home. The jury considered this incorrect fact when assessing the officers’ testimony and credibility, and in deciding whether Appellant’s conduct met the elements of the offenses with which he was charged. Appellant was also precluded from presenting an argument (whether valid or not) that he acted in self-defense or was justified in his actions. Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial, at which the drugs and paraphernalia shall be excluded, the jury will be informed that the officers were unlawfully inside Appellant’s residence, and Appellant can frame his defense around that fact.