Opinion ID: 542287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lawfulness of the Police Entry

Text: 12 Appellants claim that the search was illegal because the police failed to comply with the knock and announce statute, D.C.Code Sec. 33-565(g), which requires officers to give notice of authority and purpose before breaking open an entry to execute a warrant. We agree with the district court that the exigent circumstances exception applies to this case. See United States v. Bonner, 874 F.2d 822, 826 (D.C.Cir.1989) (applying the exception to the federal version of the knock and announce statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3108). The officers heard running in the house even before they reached the front door. Sergeant Exum's shout of police at the front door apparently was loud enough to produce a considerable scramble inside the house. At the same time, Officer Brown observed appellant Peter Crossfield dive through a closed window at the back of the house, and radioed to Exum that people were coming out the back. Contrary to appellants' urging, the record as a whole clearly establishes that the police did not enter the rear of the house prior to--or even simultaneous with--the breaking down of the front door. The considerable commotion which Exum heard inside the house was not the sound of other policeman, and it constituted exigent circumstances which relieved him from the requirement of announcing his purpose. See, e.g., United States v. James, 764 F.2d 885, 888-89 (D.C.Cir.1985). 13