Commonwealth v. Frederick
124 A.3d 748
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Lycoming County officers (Detective Loudenslager and Deputy Spiegel) sought to serve a contempt notice on Miranda Welsh and located a residence listing Welsh and appellant Hyson E. Frederick. They attempted entry after knocking at rear and front doors; Spiegel pushed open a locked back door that would open and announced their presence only after opening it.
- Inside, officers encountered Welsh and children; while checking a closet they saw a sawed-off shotgun. The shotgun was seized and later used in two criminal dockets: a First Case (weapons charges) and a Second Case (home-invasion robbery and related charges).
- Frederick moved to suppress the shotgun in both cases on knock-and-announce grounds; the trial court denied suppression in the Second Case (concluding the violation was technical and suppression unnecessary).
- After jury conviction on consolidated charges and a guilty plea in the First Case, Frederick appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying suppression of the shotgun in the Second Case given the knock-and-announce violation.
- The appellate court agreed the officers violated Pennsylvania’s knock-and-announce rule (they announced identity/purpose only after opening the door) and held that, under Pennsylvania precedent, suppression is the mandatory remedy for such violations absent a recognized exigency. The court vacated the judgment of sentence as to the Second Case and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Frederick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence seized after a knock-and-announce violation must be suppressed | The entry was a mere technical noncompliance; officers announced and knocked repeatedly and no injury or property damage resulted, so suppression is unnecessary | Officers failed to announce identity/authority/purpose before opening the back door; that violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 207 and suppression is required | Knock-and-announce violation occurred; under Pennsylvania precedent suppression is the required remedy absent exigent circumstances; suppression should have been granted in the Second Case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Crompton, 682 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1996) (violation of knock-and-announce requires suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 598 A.2d 539 (Pa. 1991) (sets forth exigent-circumstance categories and purposes of the rule)
- Commonwealth v. Means, 614 A.2d 220 (Pa. 1992) (recognizes exigency categories and limits to noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Carlton, 701 A.2d 143 (Pa. 1997) (forcible unannounced entry without exigency violates state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (no good-faith exception to exclusionary rule under Pa. Const. art. I, § 8)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to knock-and-announce violations under federal law)