Commonwealth v. Chambers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
These consolidated appeals raise the issue of whether the lower courts erred in holding that evidence seized during the search of a residence must be suppressed because of a violation of the “knock and announce” rule.
On February 16, 1987 at 1:03 p.m., four police officers from the Municipality of Penn Hills initiated the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Robert Chambers. The Appellees, Robert Chambers, Cheryl Chambers, and Rebecca Kirkland, were in the residence at that time, along with two other individuals. Two detectives went to the back of the house…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. Di ReSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Commonwealth v. MasonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Commonwealth v. WhitneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Commonwealth v. NewmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FreemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. GalvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. StallworthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. EllisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.