Commonwealth v. Davido, T., Aplt
106 A.3d 611, 630 Pa. 217 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, police may conduct a warrantless entry into a residence if the totality of the circumstances provides an objectively reasonable basis for believing a person inside is in need of immediate aid, particularly when responding to a specific report of domestic violence.
Facts:
- Tedor Davido had a history of aggravated assault against a former girlfriend whom he accused of having sexual relations with one of his brothers.
- In April 2000, Davido's new girlfriend, Angelina Taylor, and her son moved into a Lancaster residence with Davido and his family.
- On the morning of May 14, 2000, Davido accused Taylor of engaging in oral sex with his brother, Spanky Davido, and an argument ensued.
- The argument escalated, and Davido began violently beating Taylor while verbally berating her.
- Davido's relatives, who were present for the argument, left the residence with Taylor's son, leaving Davido and Taylor alone inside.
- At 7:52 a.m., shortly after leaving, Davido's sister called 911 from a pay phone, identified herself as a neighbor, and reported that a man was beating a woman at 26 Hager Street.
- Upon hearing police enter the home, Davido fled through a third-story window, ran across a rooftop, and went to the home of Michele Gray.
- Davido told Gray that he had beaten Taylor and that when he fled, Taylor was pale, motionless, unresponsive, and having trouble breathing.
Procedural Posture:
- Tedor Davido was charged with murder and rape in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (the trial court).
- Prior to trial, Davido filed a motion to suppress his statements to police, which was denied; he did not file a motion to suppress evidence based on the warrantless entry.
- A jury found Davido guilty of first-degree murder and rape, and subsequently returned a sentence of death.
- Davido filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The Supreme Court of the United States denied Davido's petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Davido then filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the PCRA court denied the petition.
- Davido appealed the denial of his PCRA petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless entry into a residence violate the Fourth Amendment when police are responding to a 911 call reporting a domestic assault, and upon their prompt arrival, the residence is quiet and no one answers the door?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The warrantless entry does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers' actions were justified by the exigent circumstance of reasonably believing a person inside was in need of immediate aid. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, but an exception exists for exigent circumstances, which includes the need to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. Here, police received a specific 911 call about a man beating a woman, and a separate report mentioned screaming. Their prompt arrival to a silent, unresponsive house could reasonably suggest that the victim was incapacitated, intimidated, or otherwise unable to call for help. Given the inherent volatility and dangers of domestic violence, where victims are often silent for fear of retaliation, the officers' belief that someone inside needed immediate aid was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Their limited entry to search for a potential victim, rather than to search for evidence, was a proper exercise of their duty, and they would have been remiss to abandon the scene simply because no one answered the door. Therefore, the underlying Fourth Amendment claim lacks merit, and trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion.
Concurring - Chief Justice Castille
Agrees with the majority's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the entry. This concurrence adds that the 911 call, though from a caller who did not give her real name, could be reasonably understood by police as coming from a concerned citizen, which generally carries a 'modicum of reliability and credibility' greater than that of a criminal informant. The context of a report of domestic violence demands that such calls be taken seriously. This opinion also extensively critiques the litigation tactics of the Federal Community Defender's Office in this and other capital cases.
Concurring - Justice Saylor
Concurs only in the result. Disagrees with the majority's exigent circumstances analysis, arguing that an anonymous 911 call combined with an officer's 'gut feeling' is insufficient to justify a warrantless entry and represents an unwarranted weakening of Fourth Amendment protections. The proper course of action would have been further investigation, such as speaking with neighbors, before entering a private home. However, this opinion concurs in the judgment because the evidence would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, an alternative rationale adopted by the lower court but not reached by the majority.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement in the context of domestic violence calls. It establishes that silence and non-responsiveness at a scene, which might otherwise suggest the absence of an emergency, can be interpreted by police as an indication of an incapacitated or intimidated victim, thus creating an exigent circumstance. The ruling grants law enforcement substantial latitude in making on-the-spot judgments in these volatile situations, prioritizing the duty to protect potential victims over stricter Fourth Amendment privacy protections. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for defendants to succeed on suppression motions challenging warrantless entries in similar domestic abuse scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Davido, T., Aplt