State v. Rauch
586 P.2d 671
Idaho
1978
Check Treatment

*1 P.2d 671 Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE of RAUCH,

Daniel Charles

Defendant-Respondent.

No. 12563.

Supreme Court of Idaho. 24, 1978.

Oct. *2 Thomas, Gen.,

Lynn Deputy Atty. E. Gen., Kidwell, Wayne L. Thomas C. Atty. Boise, Chandler, Intern, plaintiff- for Legal appellant. Scanlan, Sallaz,

Dennis Beer & L. Cain of Cain, Boise, defendant-respondent. DONALDSON, Justice. Upon A. entry I did. Q. entered, state appeals you Before order, though? district court pursuant 19-2804(2) I.C. (Supp.1976) § No, sir, A. I did not. and Rule 11(c)(4), I.A.R., suppressing cer- Q. entered, you, Did you you before did evidence, tain ground law en- tell people why you requesting forcement officers to comply failed *3 admittance into their home? Idaho’s statutes, “knock and announce” I.C. A. I anybody did not talk to until I 19-611, 19-4409, §§ in executing the arrest entered the residence.

of the defendant and the subsequent seizure residence, After entering of the officers evidence. The basic facts were estab- bag seized a gym apparently lished at a con- hearing on the suppression mo- tion. large marijuana. tained a quantity Ap- of proximately one and one-half hours later a The home defendant, of Daniel search warrant at arrived the scene. Rauch Rauch, was under surveillance for suspected and his wife charged possession drug traffic the Idaho Bureau of Narcot- marijuana of and some cocaine. Early ics. day an officer pur- pound chased a marijuana of from a woman Rauch made a motion to suppress the and had followed that woman to the Rauch raid, during seized which mo- home. On evening August 1976 a tion granted was hearing. after a The number of law gath- enforcement officers court ruled that the into the residence ered near the Rauch home. did not comply with the “knock and an- After arresting one or people two who nounce” of I.C. 19-611 and §§ had recently house, left the officers 19-41409.1 entered the through house both the front state admits the officers did not and rear doors. testimony, under comply with the “knock and announce” cross-examination a attorney, defense statutes, noncompli but contends that such the narcotics officer in charge is relevant on justified ance by exigent was circumstanc manner of entry. es. We expressly adopt circum Q. As soon you as arrived at the resi- exception stances “knock and an dence, you entered residence itself? Here, however, nounce” statutes. the trial Yes, A. sir. court did not find circumstances Q. you And were the first to enter the necessary justify noncompliance house? these statutes. Yes,

A. sir. Q. Prior to entry, Everett, Mr. you did knock on the door? I No, A. sir. Knock and announce ‍​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‍statutes have been Q. Did you ring the door bell? states, passed by many including Idaho. No,

A. sir. statutes, litigated One of the more 844 of § Q. you Did identify yourself? (which the California Penal Code is almost A. Not until I entered the residence. 19-611), identical to I.C. has been ex- § Q. you Did purpose plained state the being purposes for enter- as based on four or ing the people? house to the policies: Breaking

1. 19-611. Breaking doors and windows. —To 19—4409. Service of warrant — arrest, felony, open make an may open any if the offense is a doors. —The officer break private person, any offense, public house, peace outer or inner door or window of a or officer, may open therein, house, any part any thing break the door or window of person is, warrant, if, the house in which the to be arrested execute the after notice of his au- ground or in thority purpose, which there is reasonable for be- he is refused admittance. be, lieving having him to after demanded explained admittance which admittance is desired.

589 easily destroyed, quickly and could be (1) privacy protection eluding them (see v. conduct Ker’s furtive individual his home Sabbath ground for 585, 589, 88 United the arrest supra, shortly 391 U.S. before 828; have been Miller v. Unit- well might S.Ct. he L.Ed.2d the belief that 301, 313, States, supra, hold ed 357 U.S. We therefore рolice. expecting the 1332; 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d Greven S.Ct. particular Court, Superior supra, (71 A.C. entry, method this the officers’ case 287), 504, 455 Cal.Rptr. Cal.2d P.2d California, by the law sanctioned 432; (1956) 46 People v. Maddox Cal.2d under the standards not unreasonable 6); (2) protection P.2d applied to the the Fourth Amendment present innocent who also be Fourteenth Amend- through the premises where an arrest made ment. (see Rosales, People supra, 68 Cal.2d 40-41, at 1633.2 Id. 83 S.Ct. *4 299, 304, 1, 489); (3) Cal.Rptr. 66 437 P.2d ex- A has outlined plethora precedent prevention the which are of situations be held constitute actly what factors will conducive violent confrontations be- Vance, v. 7 exigent circumstances. State occupant tween the and individuals who 566, (1972), 493 found P.2d Or.App. 492 proper enter his homе notice without noncompli- exigent to excuse circumstances (Greven Court, 71 Superior supra, v. A.C. policemen white eight ance. In case 303, (71 287), Cal.Rptr. 308-309 78 Cal.2d to execute a went neighborhood into a black 504, 432); 455 v. P.2d see United Sabbath The warrant search for narcotics. warrant States, 585, 589, supra, 391 U.S. 88 S.Ct. which also stated was based on an affidavit 1755, 828; v. 20 L.Ed.2d Miller United an automatic the defendant carried 301, 313, 12, supra, 357 U.S. fn. 78 ap- pistol person. his As the 1332; 1190, 2 People S.Ct. L.Ed.2d v. Ro- house, proached the the curtains sales, 299, 304, supra, 66 68 Cal.2d Cal. were the officers were parted window 1, 489; (4) Rptr. protec- 437 P.2d the curtains then closed and the observed. The tion of police might injured by who footsteps rapidly retreat- lead officer heard startled and feаrful householder. ing Appeals Court of from the door. The Duke v. Super. Angeles County, Ct. of Los 1 Oregon exigent situation met the found this 314, 348, Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d 82 461 exception peril circumstances because 628, (1969). P.2d 632-633 handgun. from the California, The landmark case of Ker v. 301, Maddox, In 46 294 People v. Cal.2d 23, 1623, 374 U.S. 83 10 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 726 watching had (1956), police 6 been P.2d (1963) approved exigent circumstances for some time. the home of the defendant exception to the “knock and announce” come out of the person just A who Ker, In failure to that he had police outside house told the “knock and announce” statutes of Cali- from the defend- just fornia heroin justified by bought the trial court and some the door and police approached affirmed the California District Cоurt of ant. The said, Appeals. Supreme After “Wait a min- A male voice California knocked. hearing, Court retreating denied the United footsteps ute” then Supreme following exigent Court found the excusing noncompliance with heard. In circumstances: statute, Justice “knock and announce” case, justification Traynor explained:

Here “When as in this for the officers’ fail- grounds felo- give ure to notice is he has reasonable to believe a uniquely present. ny being retreating addition the officers’ belief that Ker is committed and hears narcotics, was in possession peril footsteps, the conclusion that his Ohio, 643, 499, Mapp ‍​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‍(1964). 2. Like v. 81 was a deci- 367 U.S. S.Ct. Penn.L.R. 539 Ker 5-4 concurring graphic 6 L.Ed.2d is a sion with Justice in the re- 1081 “Ker Harlan inability only. illustration of the of the Justices sult agree in search and 112 seizure cases.” U. of 590 Mendoza, 395, 454 P.2d v. 104 Ariz.

would be increased or that the felon would State (1969). 140, 144-45 escape if he entrance and ex- demanded plained purpose, is not unreasonable.” the record in An examination of Id., 294 at 9. P.2d finding trial court’s supports this case exigent of lack of circumstances. analysis A case case must be below, “evidence words of the trial exigent made to determine if cir any exigent completely failed to show exceptions. exist as there can be no blanket would excuse cumstances which Rosales, People v. 68 Cal.2d 66 Cal. announce with the knock and Rptr. (1968); 437 P.2d 489 v. Mitch State It entry.” of the statutes before ell, Or.App. out, true, that the points as thе dissent general circumstances which have evidence “demonstrat judge found that been found circum- to constitute entry, time of ed that (1) stances are a reasonable belief that com- probable gave circumstances existed pliance with a and announce” stat- “knock entry was needed believing that cause for ute would result in the destruction of evi- monitor the resi to secure the house and dence, (2) compli- belief that reasonable warrant arrived to dents before search place peril. ance would the officer in See from prevent removal of contraband Tribble, People Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d judge stated: the trial house.” But as Clarke, (1971); P.2d 589 find- exists between the inconsistency No (Fla.Ct.App.1970). Sо.2d *5 probable cause to ing of the existence of Mitchell, supra, State v. had factor until a search enter and secure the house a small amount of narcotics which could and the find- warrant could be obtained disposed easily. have been State existed exigent circumstances ing that no Brothers, Or.App. 507 P.2d 398 ignore which would the officers allow specifically the search warrant was This is the knock and announce statute. small, easily disposed a of amount of time entirely different because of the heroin. were addition defendants wait for the search frames involved. The police approach by barking warned of the several have involved warrant could Mueller, dogs. Wash.App. State v. good during whiсh the officers hours (1976) exigent 552 P.2d 1089 found circum- would reason to the contraband believe easily recog- police stances that the destroyed. or house be from the removed nizable as such and that someone saw them However, the time involved apartment approaching and ran into statute is a with the knock and announce ahead them. To create few minutes at most. a be- justify would which circumstances The addressed Supreme of Arizona Court in that would be lost lief that evidence finding exigent the standard for circum- as fur- evidence such requires time frame stances. in the house or rapid movements tive or might While the evidence in some cases Indepen- the house. warning calls within provide well be such as to rеasonable there is exist where grounds dent could cause for officers to believe that their weapons in the house evidence of announcement of the of their lives of the officers endanger the entry would cause the search to be frus- presence. No evi- their they announced trated, lacking ‍​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‍such is in the instant case. in this case to create presented was dence presumption It must be more than the circumstance, (em- either such destroyed that the evidence would be be- added) phasis There must easily cause it could be done. “exigent which would The term circumstances” be substantial evidence com exceptional or that such to a catalogue cause the officers tо believe refers in various situ destroyed pres- pelling if their circumstances evidence would be search, enter, seize police allow ations ence were announced. II with the war- complying arrest without the United States rant hearing below con suppression the case of unannounced Constitution or in persons, testimony of two sisted of the search, complying with entries without who led this officer the narcotics Rauch and and announce” stat- federal or state “knock of the narcotics testimony episode. The States, 85 utes. Accarino v. United See immediate opinion officer was (1949); 179 F.2d 456 U.S.App.D.C. be necessary noncompliance entry and Sanchez, 88 N.M. may in the house people cause he fеared the of “knock and an- In the context presence have been aware statutes, “exigent circumstances” nounce” this fear officer based officers outside. refer to those immediate may had been arrest people that two on the fact armed, where where be a defendant that some house ed in front of the immediately easily and may be at the scene. quickly arrived police ears had may escape destroyed, where defendant any firearms suspicion evidence or No in fur- engaged has or where a defendant Further, was claimed. peril police In the context of warrantless tive conduct. any not know if that he did officer testified arrests, courts consider six fac- entriеs anyone in observed activity of this “exigent tors to determine if circumstanc- the house. (1) the or violent present: gravity es” are evidence, hearing nature of the offense with which the sus- this After pect charged; (2) is to whether the sus- concluded that: armed; (3) pect reasonably believed to be example of excel- The case is another cause; (4) showing probable clear by an police lent which is nullified work strong suspect is in the reason to believe part apparently intransigent belief entered; premises (5) the to be likelihood drug enforce- working in of the officers escape swiftly if not suspect will statutory requirements ment that peaceful apprehended; (6) the circumstanc- 19-611, and Idaho Sectiоns 19— es of v. United entry. Dorman inves- Code, to narcotics applicable aren’t 435 F.2d U.S.App.D.C. tigations. . *6 (1970). It the term “exi apparent is record in this case evidentiary Under the gent in the “knock and an circumstances” the officers any part belief on the necessarily, al nounce” context does not existed exigent though meaning as may, carry it same few minutes taking preclude entry it does in the warrantless and war knock and comply with the required to rantless arrest context. In this case as the on had to be based announce statute noted, explicitly trial court the time frame ours) speculation, (emphasis sheer gave probable involved cause to enter and shows, specu- As above sheer the discussion secure premises the Rauch without a war ignore to enough grounds is lation not rant but did necessity not excuse the “knock and announce” complying with Idaho’s “knock an argues that offi- appeal The state urgency nounce” There was no statute. exigent circum- testimony provided cer’s justified noncompliance non-compliance with the justify stances to though probable statute even there The cases statute. “knock and announce” premises. cause to enter and secure any help provide not do cited state note that interesting It is also create the basis to for the lack of a factual exceptions circumstance to “knock necessity ignore the statute. country in this have announce” statutes dealing with only evolved from cases III situations rather “knock and announce” the officer’s Once it is determined involving than warrantless entries cases unlawful, this find- (1971). the effect of 55 Minn.L.R. 871 arrests. See 592

ing upon must the states the fourteenth amend- explored. days, From earliest Ohio, authority supra. common law limited the Mapp v. ment. law enforcement to break the door forbidding the ac essence of The of a house to effect an arrest. Accari- See manner is certain quisition in a of evidence States, no v. supra. United action “Such only inadmissible in is not that the evidence precious privacy invades the interest of at all. court, be used Silverth it shall not up adage summed in the ancient that a States, 251 v. United orne Lumber Cо. man’s house is his castle.” Miller v. United 182, (1920). 385, 64 L.Ed. 319 40 U.S. S.Ct. States, 301, 307, 1190, 357 78 U.S. S.Ct. converse, obtained com In the 1194, (1958). 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 pletely independently illegal of the search Case, As Semayne’s stated in 77 Eng.Rep. may be admissible. Nardone v. United (1603): 194 338, 266, States, 308 60 84 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. In all cases where the King party, Ct., (1939); County Super. 307 Machado v. (if open) sheriff the doors be Stanislaus, 316, Cal.App.3d 119 45 Cal. house, party’s break the either to arrest Rptr. (1975). 344 him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot very need for it, enter. But before he ought he breaks statutes and the “knock and announce” signify coming, the cause of his and to requires great noncompliance danger from request open doors. make strict courts that have enforcement. Other Id. 195. excluded, absent addressed that issuе have circumstances, evidence seized as right basic to be secure in a This appro result of failure to home, person’s guaranteed ‍​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‍by the fourth priate statute. amendment, resulted in has statutes like People I.C. 19-611 and 19-4409. v. Ra §§ Castelo, People v. 67 63 Cal.2d mey, Cal.Rptr. 16 Cal.3d 545 Cal.Rptr. even (1976). P.2d 1333 The exclusionary rule has though the evidence was seized under a been guarantor the basic of freedom from warrant, proper search because “knock illegal police action. Weeks v. United and announce” statute had not been com U.S. S.Ct. warrant, plied with in execution (1914) accurately L.Ed. 652 described the evidence was excluded. exclusionary rule. Washington has come to the State private If letters and documents can Lowrie, same conclusion. Wash. State thus be seized and held and used in evi- App. 528 P.2d against dence a citizen accused of an of- Mendoza, obtained a re- supra, evidence fense, protection the Fourth (noncompliance illegal sult an search *7 of Amendment, declaring right to be se- statute) and announce” with the “knock seizures, against cure such searches and is though the officers had even was excluded value, and, of no thus so far as those a search warrant. valid concerned, placed are well might as be stricken from the The ef- Constitution. must follow a similar law Idaho forts of the courts and their officials to exclusionary of the rule The value course. bring guilty punishment, praise- the to long before recognized by this Court was are, worthy they by as are not to be aided required Supreme Court the United States great principles the sacrifice of those es- As this it fourth amendment violations. for by years tablished of endeavor and suf- explained applying the exclusion Court fering which have resulted in their em- illegally seized: “The ary rule to evidence bodiment in the fundamental law of the that evi in this state rule is well settled land. dence, of defendant’s procured in violation and immunity from search matter of time constitutional only After Weeks it was a seizure, will be excluded inadmissible and exclusionary before the rule was mandated is IV timely request suppression for be its 703, Conner, 695, 59 Idaho made.” State v. the that it is determined Once 197, P.2d dis entry, evidencе by the broken law was illegal the a result of as or seized covered ago Morgan Justice be- long As Super. v. Greven be excluded. entry must predictor necessity the to ex- came for Clara, 71 Cal.2d County of Santa ofCt. illegally clude seized evidence. (1969); Peo P.2d 432 Cal.Rptr. disregard, In order the total dis- that Lowrie, su Rosales, v. supra; State ple v. record, of by closed this these constitu- justi to evidence is There substantial pra. effectual, safeguards tional be finding that judge’s trial fy the party by court must become a it receiv- to non exist to excuse circumstances did I ing proof. the results as to do decline announce” “knock and compliance with so, procured by an and hold that found specifically The trial search, pur- illеgal unreasonable presented which was no evidence that there it, seize pose of which was to discover and weapons there indicated objec- timely proper and inadmissible if furtive conduct house or that there introduction, tion because be made to its the belief justify would the house which procured it was an of by invasion it lost in the time would that evidence rights guaranteed to all within would have taken by this state sec. art. of the Consti- It statute. “knock and announce” tution, it, against and to admit a defend- suppression grant proper to therefore objec- ant in a criminal case over an such completely Any result motion. other violation, tion, court, by would be a announce” statutes the “knock and nullify sec. 13 thereof. dangerous for situation and would create the United policeman alike.3 As citizen and guardians These sections are of Ameri- v. explained in Miller Supreme Court liberty justice can to us come States, supra: United from the same source and like sacri- reliance duly We are mindful those, equally fice as did not more but law achieving society place must we greatly prized, whereby guaran- are agencies of enforcing upon and order religious liberty, jury, teed on ob- law. But insistence the criminal assemble, arms, right peaceably to bear traditional servance law speech, liberty press, free is, from procedural fair many safeguards, other constitutional view, best calculated long point of whiсh, they faithfully because have been much in However end. contribute courts, upheld by accomplished have upon such insistence particular case more than to make any agency has other technicality that as a may appear rules government this peoples one person, a guilty inures to the benefit may profitably copy. earth proves law history the criminal Anderson, 31 Idaho 174 P. in law shortcut methods that tolerance of J., (1918) (Morgan, dissenting). enduring its effec- impairs enforcement The very sanctity of the home that notice requirement prior tiveness. The underlies the an passage “knock and forcing authority before statutes, nounce” Miller United deeply in our entry into a home is rooted *8 supra, requirеs that we grudg- exclude not be heritage given and should codifying as a the those a application. Congress, seized result of violation of ing in Anglo-American tradition embedded knocked, explained 3. demanded admittance and The “knock and announce” do not statutes admittance, require police they any appreciable that wait for the for which desired entering they they complied time before 19-611 § a house have with I.C. after would have complied immediately without the statute. In circumstanc- and could have entered the case, police delay. es of this have the law, people a were ob- has declared in the reverence network and number § for the right entering the law individual’s the departing аnd Rauch served householder, privacy in his house. Every During it was believed residence. that time good bad, the guilty and the the and the eight drug transactions took that seven or innocent, is entitled protection to the de- leaving the persons a number of place and signed to secure interest the common the officers to by residence were believed against unlawful invasion of the house. Two of controlled substances. carrying petitioner lawfully could ar- not be and residence circled persons those left the breaking rested in his home officers period a a vehicle neighborhood without giving first him notice of their it was believed nine minutes and eight authority purpose. and peti- Because the law enforcement they observed tioner did receive that notice before in the sur- engaged personnel vehicles and the officers broke the door to invade his to the they returned Thereafter veillance. home, unlawful, the arrest and the was surveillance, residence. Rauch sup- evidence seized should have been the law en- and communications network pressed. by the actions described forcement were Id., 313-314, 357 U.S. at 78 S.Ct. at 1197. work.” The police as “excellent charge enforcement officer in of the law Affirmed. and operation issued to detain arrest orders BISTLINE, JJ., and BAKES concur. many house and persons leaving those arrested, although two were detained and SHEPARD, Justice, Chief dissenting. escaped. or three my judgment, majority opinion operation in the participating Officers simple escalates a today problem statutory they those testified that believed of law enforcement into constitutional di- house, escaped who leaving the those both result, That suggest, mensions. I is not possessed apprehended, and who those required by the decisions of the United also They controlled testified substances. Court, Supreme unnecessary, un- received that on basis of information warranted, improvident a and will have officers a reliable be- from informant long lasting and adverse effect on the abili- eight pounds there was in excess of lieved ty enforcement of law officials in Idaho to house, marijuana together an enforce laws and adequately our criminal cocaine and the undetermined amount of protect society. our “buy” money. They marked testified that I it is flesh out the believe desirable to opinion in their there was a substantial risk cursory otherwise bland and treatment destruction of that evidence. The trial On Au- majority opinion. the facts decision, court, in its memorandum found: gust 2, 1976, p. at 7:15 m. an undercover questioned In this case at the time of the police allegedly quanti- officer purchased house, entry through into the excellent ty marijuana from one Vicki Laird. police work the had developed officers marijuana had in a black That been carried probable cause the defendants to arrest mark- bag purchase and the made with bеlieve that controlled substances sale, ed money. Immediately after were in the This was done house. joined defendant-respondent Laird Rauch buy, following through a sus- controlled returned and others in a vehicle surveil- pects to the house and continued During trip Rauch’s residence. addition lance thereafter. Rauch kept vehicle under surveillance. steps initiated to obtain search bag into carrying that black was observed warrant, after which was obtained residence, kept which was thereafter I find to have questioned 6:45 approximately under surveillance from time, validly The evidence further been issued. p. p. During m. 7:30 m. until time that at law enforce- demonstrated of officers in large number existed entry, maintained a communications ment vehicles *9 requesting admittance into the gave probable believing cause for prior entry. that house to his actual Immediate- entry was needed to secure the himself as ly house and after he identified monitor the residents before he had and stated prevent agent the search warrant arrived to state narcotics controlled that removal of contraband from the house. to believe probable cause Rauch and (Citations the house. omitted.) were in substances at that in the house were persons nine other One officer involved raid testified under immediately placed time and were that he was located two blocks distant from previously was the plain view arrest. point Rauch residence. From that he floor, bag, observed black testified that he could hear the activities view plain which contained opened, and taking place in front Rauch resi- bricks, kilos, appeared what “one or two dence. high speed Police vehicles at is uncontroverted that marijuana.” It to be arriving stop on the scene and sliding to a place at house as such took no search of the in front of the house to block the exit of ap- warrant arrived time. A search Shouting vehicles. per- of orders to those hours later one and one-half proximately sons arrested and other commotion could be premises a search of the and thereafter heard at a distance of two blocks. It was place. took testified that the officers feared question presented possessed only individuals in the house have The narrow “knock and weapons Idaho’s and thus it would be to the detri- whether this case is 19-611,19-4409, statutes, ment of the officers involved to enter the I.C. §§ announce” hasty residence in of the suppression other than fashion. The require the facts and arriving when, officers did so with on scene under the uncontroverted here, drawn the officers weapons. presented otherwise indicate their failed to knock or judge learned trial held that identify them- the door and presence above facts demonstrated the existence of purpose of their de- state the selves and “exigent justified circumstances” which mand for admittance. entry into the residence and the arrest of the individuals therein that “the time in- judge without the necessi- held The trial ty of a warrant. majority opinion with the knock and to- volved in day does not rulings overturn a few minutes at those of the announce statutes judge. Hence, trial pro- the constitutional the beliefs of the most.” He held that tections against afforded warrantless ar- destruction regarding possible rests and search and seizure are not own at issue fears for their evidence or their here. Rather taking obviously, preclude felt “which would safety the warrantless entry subsequent required few minutes arrests were not “unreasonable” in a to be based consti- statute had knock and announce n tutional difficult, dimensiоn. Hence, in I find it my opinion, speculation.” sheer the discussions of the then majority to find that relating to impossible, indeed constitutional protections “exigent and the circum- authori- existent facts constituted therein, federal, ties cited both state and the warrantless en- justified stances” which are irrelevant to the case at hand and con- arrests otherwise try and the warrantless stitute dicta. federal prohibited the state and by both constitutions, “exi- not constitute but did Following the arrest of those who gent excusing non-compli- circumstances” residence, had left the Rauch officer ance statutory requirements. charge operation of the testified that he immediately entered the house. No force Here “through pо- the officers excellent entry. violence How- accompanied his lice work” had ascertained that the occu- ever, knock, it is ring pants clear that he did not dealing Rauch residence were doorbell, presence. or otherwise indicate his in narcotics and indeed that the residence Neither did he identify himself or state the was probably the large center of a scale *10 rejected the activity. proposition ‍​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‍testi- Court that noncom-

illegal narcotic The officers experience police exigent fied that their in work led pliance reasonable in cir- may be “buy” money them that and to believe the In subsequent Wong to Miller. cumstances destroyed would if there other evidence v. United 371 U.S. S.Ct. Sun entering in the Rauch resi- any delay (1963), the Court 9 L.Ed.2d held dence. The officers further testified that complied officers had not that federal of activity all of the commotion and in front There executing 3109 in an arrest. the § probably being the Rauch residence was noted that in Miller it had reserved Court by anyone observed the residence. inside exigent in question exception the of an prior Rauch himself to the testified that ‘[hjere, and as circumstances stated in the entry of officers he the arrest observed Miller, claims no extraordi- Government gunpoint just of two who had as the imminent nary circumstances—such exited the Rauch residence. evidence, need of vital or the to destruction my judgment, In of the trial ruling in . . which peril rescue а victim —. judge that the action of the officers was truthfully the officer’s failure to (cid:127)excused ” speculation” based on “sheer was erroneous in.’ he broke state his mission before and judg- constituted substitution of his Ker, Supreme U. Court cited S. ment for those of the was said officers. As of the California the decision approval Supreme the United in an Court Maddox, 46 Cal.2d People in court case, almost “[wjithout identical the benefit (1956), quoted extensively 294 P.2d 6 and hindsight spur of and of ordinarily Traynor. Jus- opinion from the of Justice moment, the officer must decide these Maddox, Traynor, tice stated: questions in the first Ker v. instance.” pri- It must be borne in mind that California, 374 U.S. 83 S.Ct. guar- mary purpose the constitutional quoting L.Ed.2d from prevent antees is to unreasonable inva- Maddox, People v. 46 Cal.2d people in their security sions of (1956). I exigent would hold as cir- houses, effects, persons, papers, and and cumstances existed which validated when an officer cause to has reasonable arrest, entry and warrantless warrantless so dwelling arrest and as enter a to make an those same and the circumstances an incident to that arrest is authorized police reasonable beliefs of the search, entry his and make a reasonable experience conducting based on their Sus- are his search not unreasonable. the facts drug knowledge raids and their right to de- pects have no constitutional and circumstances cir- constituted evidence, no and basic stroy dispоse cumstances which their validated are violated be- compliance guarantees the residence without constitutional getting knock and announce cause an officer succeeds he to be more where is entitled place noted, As above Su- the United States would, complied had he than he quickly preme in Ker for consideration Court Moreover, since the with section 844. similar to those remarkably requirements of explanation demand presented case There the in the at bar. are a com- section 844 codification presented question Court noted narrow law, they reasonably be inter- mon being as in the violation context common law preted limited knock statute. California’s аnd announce required rules Ker, distinguished the Court between the peril have been in- the officer’s guarantees against constitutional unreason- had he or the frustrated creased arrest with- able searches and seizures and arrests pur- and stated demanded entrance excep- out the benefit of a and the warrant Without pose. alleged [Citations omitted.] tions thereto as contrasted with the ordinarily on the hindsight benefit a state stat- violation of either a federal or must moment, officer spur prior knock announce requiring ute first in- stated, has the questions “nor decide these entry. Court ** * and reform the alleged discipline need We therefore stance. conclude *11 personnel. The law enforcement actions of is cause to that when there reasonable controversy arising and the facts from such search and and confusion make an arrest not I rage are to and exclusionary his rule continues to him before known good belief with a faith inconsistent yet finally such has been doubt that compliance officer that part Nevertheless, to consti- even as resolved. excused, is his failure to with section 844 have been careful guarantees, there tutional requirements of comply with the formal relating of the rule to exceptions carved out justify not the exclusion that section does probable cause exigent circumstances of the evidence he obtains. with non-compliance validate otherwise to Id., 294 P.2d 9. I constitutional find language. the literal failing to ex- valid for carve like no basis Wilson, Wash.App. also See State Vance, relating ceptions involving cause in situations probable 492 P.2d Or.App. compliance in with literal actions not no and, judgment, my I no in see reason language our knock and announce stat- majority valid rationale is furnished opinion, there is substantial my utes. operation of ex- opinion require evidence in the record and uncontroverted under obtained clusionary rule to evidence the existence of circum- indicating As stated circumstances. the instant excusing the otherwise non-con- Maddox, stances proceeding “in this we are not formance of the officers here our concerned with whether or officer’s Conversely, knock and announce statutes. justified de- failure to do so would have substantiating the I find no evidence person using protect fendant in force property, or whether jury or not a ruling that the action here judge’s officer’s trespass might conclude that reason- and, action speculation was based on sheer there- able for cause the officer’s failure to fore, suppressing would reverse his order require- the demand that explanation the evidence. Moreover, since ment not exist. did privacy to invade defendant’s right officer’s J., McFADDEN, concurs. compelling need clearly appears, there is no strict pro- of section announce] [knock guarantees.”

tect basic constitutional requiring exclusionary rule procured in violation of evidence

quashing to ar- guarantees relating

of constitutional and seizure based

rests or search