Commonwealth v. Crompton

OPINION

NEWMAN, Justice.

James Crompton (Crompton) appeals from an Order of the Superior Court affirming his conviction for possession of marijuana1 and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.2 We reverse.

Our analysis of the question before us is twofold; whether the police complied with the knock and announce rule, and if they did not, whether the evidence seized during the search should be suppressed.

On August 26, 1992, Pennsylvania State Troopers arrived at Crompton’s home to execute a search warrant. The facts *590presented at trial establish that Crompton’s front door was open, leaving…