Commonwealth v. Wilmer, A., Aplt., 194 A.3d 564

State troopers observed an intoxicated man stumbling on a sorority house roof and were refused entry; they forced entry (breaking a window) to render aid and summoned EMS.
After the man fell and first responders were treating him outside, Trooper Smolleck seized marijuana items in plain view on a coffee table while exiting.
Trooper Smolleck then reentered the residence to obtain resident information for an incident report and, while talking to appellant Ashley Wilmer, observed drug paraphernalia on a nightstand and charged her.
Wilmer moved to suppress evidence from the reentry; the trial court denied the motion, convicted her after a stipulated bench trial, and the Superior Court affirmed as part of one continuous exigent episode.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the emergency aid exception justified the trooper’s reentry after the emergency had passed and concluded it did not, reversing and suppressing the evidence from the reentry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether initial warrantless entry to render emergency aid was lawful	Wilmer argued there was no proof the roof person actually needed aid	Commonwealth argued officers reasonably believed immediate aid was needed	Court assumed initial entry lawful for purposes of appeal (objectively reasonable belief)
Whether trooper could reenter after emergency dissipated to complete administrative tasks and lawfully seize plain-view evidence	Wilmer argued reentry was unlawful because the emergency ended and no other exception justified reentry	Commonwealth/Superior Court argued reentry was part of one continuous episode justified by the original exigency and necessary to complete incident reporting	Court held reentry was not authorized by the emergency aid exception once the emergency ended; evidence from reentry suppressed

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (emergency-aid searches permitted only as narrowly circumscribed by the immediate need; prolonged/exhaustive warrantless searches after emergency abate are unconstitutional)
Commonwealth v. Livingstone, 174 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2017) (defines community caretaking doctrine and holds post-emergency police action is evaluated under traditional Fourth Amendment analysis)
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) (fire officials may reenter after extinguishing fire to investigate origin as continuation of emergency response)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (recognizes community caretaking functions that justify certain warrantless intrusions)
U.S. v. Goldenstein, 456 F.2d 1006 (8th Cir. 1972) (officer’s search beyond locating victims after exigency abated exceeded emergency-aid scope and required a warrant)