PA: Officers knocked before entry and defendant acknowledged their presence

Failure to comply with the knock and announce requirement could result in exclusion under state law. Here, however, the trial court’s findings of fact justified dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement. Officers heard defendant acknowledge their presence, and then they entered with guns drawn. Commonwealth v. Goodis, 2023 PA Super 136, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 340 (July 28, 2023).

The state had defendant’s bank records by search warrant and subpoena. It said it wouldn’t use the warrant-seized records and agreed to a motion to suppress. That didn’t preclude using the subpoenaed records. People v Decker, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3991 (3d Dept. July 27, 2023).*

The stop was with reasonable suspicion that defendant’s tag light was out. When the DL was handed over, he took off driving 120 mph. When he stopped, he bailed from the car carrying his backpack. That gave probable cause there was contraband in it. “The defendant argues in his motion that even with this reasonable, articulable suspicion, the officers used the traffic violation as a pretext to stop him to investigate for drug possession. At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel suggested that Officer Cullen and Agent Dunn conducted a drug interdiction operation and were not truly interested in investigating traffic violations.” United States v. Burney, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130095 (S.D. W.Va. July 27, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Knock and announce, Probable cause, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.