holding that a statutory codification of the common law "may reasonably be interpreted as limited by ... common law rules" even though the common law rules are not mentioned in the statute
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statutory codification of the common law "may reasonably be interpreted as limited by ... common law rules" even though the common law rules are not mentioned in the statute
- holding that knock and announce not necessary where police have reasonable belief that evidence likely to be destroyed if presence known
- compliance with “knock and announce” statute excused when officers, after knocking, heard a voice say, “Wait a minute,” and then heard the sound of retreating footsteps
- Narcotics officers knocked, heard male voice say “Wait a minute” and the sound of retreating footsteps. California Supreme Court, per Justice Tray-nor, held officers were justified in kicking down the door.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance because I believe that on the record before us the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was engaged in the commission of a felony at the time the search was executed and that the evidence obtained as the result of the search was therefore admissible against him.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was demed March 21, 1956.