Commonwealth v. Wallace
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SHERTZ, Judge:
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth 1 from an order granting Appellee’s, Larry Wallace, motion to suppress evidence. The Commonwealth advances two arguments: (1) that because the “Knock and Announce” Rule is inapplicable to unoccupied dwellings, the lower court erred in invoking the rule in the instant case, and (2) that even assuming the applicability of the “Knock and Announce” Rule, the police conduct in question was not a violation thereof. We disagree and affirm.
The relevant facts are as follows. Based upon information received from an informant, Margaret Perez,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miller v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Commonwealth v. BosurgiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- United States v. Francisco Bustamante-Gamez, United States of America v. Abelardo Garcia-RamirezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1973
- Commonwealth v. NewmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Commonwealth v. SamuelsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- State v. BilancioNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999
- Commonwealth v. BakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. MourarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Commonwealth v. BallietSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.