Court Opinion

ID: 9736188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:46:47.255927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.946490
License: Public Domain

FILES, P. J., Dissenting.
— I would affirm upon the ground that there was substantial compliance with section 844. The officers knocked “three separate times.” When they received no answer they said “Police officers” through the screen door which separated the living room from the front porch. The wooden door was open. Still there was no answer. The officers knew people were inside, and it seemed obvious they understood the purpose of the visit but had no intention of answering the door.
The Supreme Court has held that under such circumstances the police have substantially complied with section 844. (See People v. Carswell (1959) 51 Cal.2d 602, 607 [335 P.2d 99]; People v. Cockrell (1965) 63 Cal.2d 659, 663, 665 [47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116]; accord: People v. Cox (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 176, 186 fn. 3 [69 Cal.Rptr. 410]; People v. Nash (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 216, 225 [67 Cal.Rptr. 621]; but see People v. Cain (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 383, 391 [67 Cal.Rptr. 922].)
The purpose of section 844 is to give the householder a chance to come to the door before his house is invaded forcibly. The officers’ conduct in this case was sufficient for that purpose. It would do no one any good to require a more formal recitation on the doorstep under the circumstances shown here.
There is nothing in either People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299 [66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489] or People v. Marshall (1968) 69 Cal.2d 51 [69 Cal.Rptr. 585, 442 P.2d 665] to indicate that the Supreme Court has overruled Carswell or Cockrell.
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 22, 1968. Files, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondent's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 27,1968.