concur in the result. Although I agree with much of the substan tive analysis presented by the majority in its treatment of various of Appellant’s claims, I have sufficient differences with various elaborations that I am unable to supply a full joinder. In particular, as pertains to Part II of the majority opinion — which addresses Appellant’s claim of deficient stewardship by virtue of his attorneys’ failure to seek suppression — I agree with Appellant that the PCRA court erred in its conclusion that an anonymous 911 report of a domestic disturbance, coupled with a responding officer’s “gut feeling,” meets the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement so as to justify entry by police into a residence. Accord Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 232-36 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The majority references no decision which is
holding that 911 call reporting domestic dispute and child telling officer that a man with a gun was inside fighting with her mom constituted exigent circumstances that justified warrantless entry into home holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man  acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment