relying on King, supra, and finding no police-created exigency where police knocked-and-announced, and resident who opened door tried to destroy evidence
How later courts described this case
- relying on King, supra, and finding no police-created exigency where police knocked-and-announced, and resident who opened door tried to destroy evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
COLVILLE, J.:
I agree that Appellant is not entitled to relief; however, I would address his appellate issues as follows.
*1092 Appellant’s first issue is a challenge to the warrantless search of his person. That search was conducted pursuant to his arrest. A search incident to a lawful arrest is a specifically established and well-delineated exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches. In the Interest of O.A., 552 Pa. 666 , 717 A.2d 490, 495 (1998). Appellant does not challenge the legality of the arrest. Accordingly, Appellant’s first issue is without merit.
Appellant’s second issue is a challenge to the search of his property. That search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant. Appellant does not challenge the legality of the search warrant. Accordingly, this issue is also without merit.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of sentence. Thus, I concur.