Commonwealth v. Romero

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether an arrest warrant authorizes law enforcement to enter a residence when officers reasonably believe the intended arrestee lives there, but the residence actually belongs to third parties. The court also addresses the appellate standard of review for a suppression court's finding that the residents did not consent to entry, applying the principles of Payton v. New York and Steagald v. United States.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court erred by treating the entry as consensual because the suppression court found that the officers lacked express permission and the testimony supporting consent was directly contradicted by Romero's credited testimony.
2. Even when officers seek to execute an arrest warrant, a law-enforcement entry into a home must be authorized by a warrant reflecting a magistrate's determination of probable cause to search that home, whether through a separate search warrant or through an arrest warrant that itself contains that determination. Absent such a warrant, entry is permissible only under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an arrest warrant, without a separate search warrant, authorized officers to enter Romero's and Castro's home to execute the warrant for Moreno.
2. Whether the Superior Court improperly relied on contradicted testimony to determine that Romero or Castro permitted the officers to enter.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded