Com. v. Boden, D., 840 WDA 2016

Police responded to an animal-cruelty complaint at Appellant Douglas Boden’s residence; Officer Luffey knocked, heard a child crying, and a naked, bruised toddler appeared at a window pleading “help, help me, mommy.”
Officer Luffey feared the child was in danger and requested backup after the child remained distressed and a dog appeared to be jumping on him.
Boden briefly opened the door, told officers to “get the fuck out of here,” and then ignored repeated requests to open the door; officers then used a battering ram to enter without a warrant.
Inside, officers observed a distressed, unclothed child with apparent bruising, no bedding or diapers, little or no food in the house, and drug paraphernalia within reach; EMS and child welfare were contacted.
Boden was charged with endangering the welfare of children (EWOC) graded as a third‑degree felony (course-of-conduct) and a summary cruelty-to-animals count; suppression of the warrantless entry was denied and a jury convicted Boden of felony-graded EWOC.
On appeal Boden challenged (1) denial of suppression (warrantless entry lacked exigent circumstances) and (2) sufficiency of evidence for a “course of conduct” to support felony grading; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances	Officer’s observations (naked, bruised, crying toddler pleading for help, dog on child, defendant’s hostile refusal to cooperate) created exigency to protect child	No clear exigency; initial complaint was animal-related and officers could have sought a warrant	Exigency satisfied: Demshock factors weighed for exigent entry given immediate risk to child; suppression denial affirmed
Whether evidence supported felony grading ("course of conduct") of EWOC	Circumstantial and direct evidence (lack of food, no bedding/diapers, child’s injuries, drug paraphernalia in reach) demonstrated multiple endangering conditions/pattern	Popow requires extended period (days/weeks) or repeated acts; here conditions were observed within hours and not proven over time	Sufficient evidence for course of conduct: multiple dangerous conditions permitted inference of ongoing neglect; felony grading upheld

Commonwealth v. Demshock, 854 A.2d 553 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sets multi‑factor test for exigent‑circumstances analysis for warrantless entry)
Commonwealth v. Popow, 844 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discusses "course of conduct" for EWOC and cautions against treating a single short event as multiple acts)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 102 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Super. 2014) (interprets "course of conduct" language and confirms need for repetitive acts when specific acts are alleged)
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (probable cause standard explanation)
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Commonwealth v. Lynn, 114 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2015) (EWOC is protective and should be construed to further child‑safety purposes)