Opinion ID: 1241125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: warrantless entry to secure the premises

Text: It was unfortunate that the fact of the warrantless entry did not become disclosed until midway in the trial. I say that with the thought in mind that the trial court here might very well have ruled otherwise given a full-blown pre-trial inquiry into the facts and circumstances, given more time and opportunity to consider the scant law available on entries made to secure the premises, and given more time to weigh the authority in light of the incontrovertible language and purpose of the Fourth Amendment to protect the people in the privacy of the home. The remarks of the trial court show an extreme concern and quite apparent disenchantment with the police action in breaking into the Gomez home without having at hand a warrant to do so, with the court ultimately being swayed by some authority from Arizona  which Arizona authority will be hereinafter discussed with regard for its shallow reasoning and callous disregard for rights guaranteed to the people. Ordinarily, of course, a motion to suppress must be made prior to trial. State v. Conner, 59 Idaho 695, 89 P.2d 197 (1939). But that opinion recognized, as did the trial court here, that there must be an opportunity to raise the issue. Here the record conclusively shows that the Gomez residence, when unlawfully broken into, was occupied only by Maria Gomez and the child. Mr. Gomez was not at home, and counsel who was to later represent Mr. Gomez had no information that the entry was warrantless until the fact was divulged at trial on examination of officer Paul Johnson. The record is conclusive that Mrs. Gomez, had she had any reason to be looking out of the house at the precise time the police arrived, would have seen three grown men approach her house, none of them in uniform, having just exited from a vehicle which was not a police car. At trial the testimony of Officer Johnson was that all three were armed. The testimony did not develop whether these officers were garbed in the manner undercover agents often dress while in pursuit of their quarry  which is much in the manner of those who are under suspicion  and did not develop whether they had drawn their weapons as they burst into the residence. It is likely that one or more may have been so attired, and it is also likely that they would have drawn their weapons. If so, and except for the fact than that no one was within other than a woman and child, the situation was fraught with dangers of violence and disaster such as was one of our grave concerns in upholding and applying the validity of our knock-and-announce statute in Rauch. There we said: The very need for compliance with `knock and announce' statutes and the great danger from noncompliance requires strict enforcement. 99 Idaho at 592, 586 P.2d at 677. The warrantless entry came to light, immediately catching the attention of the trial judge, when Officer Johnson was on the stand on direct examination: Q Why did you go to that particular residence, agent Johnson? A I went there to secure the residence and initiate a search warrant on that residence. THE COURT: Would you speak up a little more. They are having difficulty hearing, apparently. Would you read that back. Possibly the jury missed part of that, and I know I did.