Court Opinion

ID: 9846792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:48:33.391335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:50.009578
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J.
I dissent. The majority, by adopting an unduly restrictive view regarding what constitutes exigent circumstances excusing strict compliance with the demand and explanation requirements of Penal Code section 844,1 *306conclude that the officers’ violation of that section vitiated the arrest and rendered the search illegal. I do not agree and am satisfied that the Court of Appeal and trial court in this case properly determined, expressly or impliedly, that under the circumstances here present literal compliance with the formal requirements of section 844 was unnecessary and the officers’ conduct was reasonable.
This court pointed out in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301, 306 [394 P.2d 6], that the primary purpose of the constitutional gurantecs regarding searches and seizures is to prevent unreasonable invasions of the security of the people in their persons, houses, papers and effects, and that compliance with the demand and explanation requirements of section 844 is excused if the facts known to the officer before his entry were sufficient to support his good faith belief that compliance would have increased his peril or frustrated the arrest. (See also Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 37-41 [10 L.Ed.2d 726, 740-743, 83 S.Ct. 1623] ; People v. Gastelo, 67 Cal.2d 586, 588 [63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706] ; People v. Carrillo, 64 Cal.2d 387, 391 [50 Cal.Rptr. 185, 412 P.2d 377] ; People v. Potter, 144 Cal.App.2d 350, 356 [300 P.2d 889].) Here the facts known to the officers before their entry amply warranted such a belief.
The police officers and the parole officer went to the house in which they had been informed defendant was living for the purpose of arresting him and his companion Berru for parole violation. According to Parole Officer Damerell, two of the officers went to the back of the house because they were “fearful of flight” by defendant and Berru. Damerell and Officer Barbarick went to the front door. There the wooden door was open, but the screen door was closed. Before entering, the officers observed Berru in a bedroom with his wife or former wife and saw defendant on a couch in the living room several feet from the front door with his back to the officers.
At the doorway the officers identified themselves to a girl. Damerell testified that “AVe were moving as quickly as possible because we anticipated [a] possible escape attempt.” Barbarick and Damerell entered the house and arrested defendant and Berru. A search of defendant’s person revealed heroin. According to defendant, it was dark outside at the time of.the arrest.
*307Information obtained by the officers from the Santa Barbara parole office regarding defendant’s prior criminal record and of his and Berru’s having absconded from parole, together with additional matters known to them including in part their observations indicating that defendant and Berru were both in the same house in separate rooms, fully justified a belief that defendant and Berru would resist arrest or resume their flight if afforded any opportunity to do so. Surprise was manifestly important in minimizing danger to the officers and preventing escape by the two parole absconders.
In my opinion the Court of Appeal in the present case properly concluded that “The officers, by their prompt and efficient actions, violated no basic constitutional or statutory guarantee by getting inside of the house, where they were entitled to be, more quickly than they would have had they complied” strictly with the formal provisions of section 844. I would affirm the judgment.
McComb, J., and Mosk, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 28, 1968. McComb, J., Mosk, J., and Burke, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Penal Code section 844 provides: "To make an arrest ... a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for *306believing him to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.”