Court Opinion

ID: 9736482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:57:58.292409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.946052
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, J. Concurring.
In the absence of exigent circumstances the use of a ruse to obtain entry to premises to make an arrest does not satisfy the requirements of Penal Code, section 844, that a peace officer first demand admittance and explain his purpose, and I would so hold in this case. (People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299 [66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489]; cf. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 [2 L.Ed.2d 1332, 78 S.Ct. 1190].) But here the ruse failed to achieve its purpose, and its effect was entirely dissipated when those *470inside, without yielding entry, discovered the true identity of their visitors. The subsequent reactions of the insiders to this discovery created circumstances sufficiently exigent to justify prompt -forcible entry without further demand or explanation.
Petitions for a rehearing were denied February 26, 1969, and the petitions of respondents Lopez, Marquez and Rodriguez for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied April 2,1969.