Metal door that would be hard to breach and presence of dogs justified dispensing with announcement

Police were justified in dispensing with announcement into a warehouse because dogs and a metal door would have blown their cover and the object of the search would be destroyed. The state’s claim that weapons were present was not advanced below so it would not be considered on appeal. Commonwealth v. Kane, 2007 PA Super 408, 940 A.2d 483 (2007).*

Plain view did not justify an entry where the defendant was called out into the hall to discuss something with the officer and arrested him but a cup was visible from outside the room that the officer entered the room to seize. A warrantless seizure cannot be justified by plain view alone because the officer had no right to enter. Commonwealth v. Newton, 2007 PA Super 409, 943 A.2d 278 (2007).*

Pennsylvania juvenile probation search required reasonable suspicion. In re J.E., 594
Pa. 528, 937 A.2d 421 (2007).*

Citizen informant’s details were sufficiently corroborated to justify a stop of the defendant. State v. Prows, 2007 UT App 409, 178 P.3d 908, 594 Utah Adv. Rep. 21 (2007):

[*P14] Sheriff Larsen asked Officer Greenwell to intercept Defendant’s vehicle based, in part, on information he received from Polumbo, a citizen informant. “[A]n informant’s tip constitutes reasonable suspicion to justify a detention or seizure of a vehicle and its driver if the information [(1)] is reliable, [(2)] provides sufficient detail of criminal activity, and [(3)] is confirmed by the investigating officer.” Id. at 169. Based on these factors, we conclude that Sheriff Larsen had reasonable articulable suspicion to effectuate a level two stop, and further, based on the fellow officer rule and the totality of the circumstances, so did Officer Greenwell.