Imagine the implications of every state doing that. Temporarily adopting another state's laws and training the police in order to arrest someone from the state they supposedly reside in. Impossible.
Good gracious sakes, what else will she try????
This was not one state agency arresting a suspect in their state. It was a multiagency arrest of a suspect on an arrest warrant from Idaho.
MTS Lamsden
The first question this Court must determine is whether there is a conflict of laws in this matter, i.e., whether Idaho law or Pennsylvanian law controls the validity of the search warrant for Mr. Kohberger’s parents’ home and the necessary relief. Unlike the issue of arrest warrants, cases involving multi-state investigations have produced far less case law. In fact, the Defense could not find a precise case on point for the state of Idaho.
However, it remains to be determined whether the actions of the FBI and Pennsylvania State Troops should be judged by the protections of Article I, Section 17, or its analogues. It is not at all clear that whether a search should be judged by Idaho’s standards of reasonableness, or that of Pennsylvania, or in the case of the FBI agents, by the Fourth Amendment.
Fortunately for this Court, Idaho and Pennsylvania do not differ in their approaches to the enforcement of their Fourth Amendment analog provisions- both do not accept the good faith exception.
Finally, it must be said that there is very little daylight between the Idaho Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Both apply exclusion to a failure to knock and announce.
If anything, Pennsylvania appears to have stricter warrant requirements for particularity
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has only found four exigent circumstances permitting police to ignore the knock and announce rule:
1. the occupants remain silent after repeated knocking and announcing;
2. the police are virtually certain that the occupants of the premises already know their purpose;
3. the police have reason to believe that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety; [or11]
4. the police have reason to believe that evidence is about to be destroyed. Fn. 11
Even though the exigencies are enumerated with the conjunctive “and,” courts have held that “any one of the instances justifies noncompliance with the knock and announce rule.” Commonwealth v. Piner, 767 A.2d 1057, 1059 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2000) (holding that the second exigency applied because “a uniformed officer stood under a porch light and engaged the attention of at least several occupants with an announcement of his identity, authority, and purpose”).
Idaho’s understanding of the knock and announce rule is set out in Rauch. The Rauch Court did not adopt a test such as that in Pennsylvania but held a case by case analysis must be made. 99Idaho 586, 590 (1978) (citations omitted). The general circumstances which have been found to constitute exigent circumstances are (1) a reasonable belief that compliance with a “knock and announce” statute would result in the destruction of evidence, or (2) a reasonable belief that compliance would place the officer in peril.
Reply to States Objection
First, it appears that the parties are in agreement on much of what law applies to the search of home.
That leaves the issue of how Federal and Pennsylvanian Law Enforcement conducted their raid.
JMO
www.nbclosangeles.com
abcnews.go.com
