Opinion ID: 1296992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Execution of the Warrant.

Text: The defendant also questions the force which was employed by the officer in breaking down the door to his apartment. He correctly maintains that a police officer must identify himself and his purpose and, except under special circumstances, allow time for the door to be opened. However, he erroneously asserts that there must be additional testimony to substantiate that of the executing officer who testified as follows: A. Upon arrival, I knocked at the door, which is the upstairs premises. After not receiving an answer, I stated, `I am a police officer, and I have a search warrant. Open the door.' At that time there was still no answer. I could hear what I believed was a radio playing inside. After having been refused answer, I forced the door open and entered.  Q. You went into the premises then? A. Yes.  Q. And what if anything did you do after entering the premises at 1660 North Arlington Place? A. I conducted a search of the entire apartment. The testimony of the officer is uncontroverted, and the trier of fact was justified in accepting it as a verity. Under the circumstances confronting the officer, his conduct was justified.