Court Opinion

ID: 9628051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:05:59.042186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:56.997274
License: Public Domain

Reed, C.J.
(dissenting) — I am unable to concur. I believe the majority places a far too restrictive reading on State v. Dugger, 12 Wn. App. 74, 83, 528 P.2d 274 (1974). In place *364of Dugger's "credible evidence, such as knowledge that the occupants might possess weapons and be predisposed to respond violently," the majority substitutes "known propensity to use" the weapon. In my view this asks too much of the officer and could, in some instances, subject him to the "palpable peril" alluded to in State v. Wilson, 9 Wn. App. 909, 916, 515 P.2d 832 (1973); see also United States v. McShane, 462 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Smith, 456 F.2d 1236 (9th Cir. 1972); Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 1966).
Also, it must be noted the Dugger court found no evidence to support a finding of exigent and necessitous circumstances. At the same time it was abiding by the rule that deference must be given to the trial judge's finding in this regard. Such a determination by the trial court will not be overturned when it is based on substantial evidence meeting constitutional standards that the officers entertained a good faith and reasonable concern for their safety. State v. Young, 76 Wn.2d 212, 455 P.2d 595 (1969); State v. Carson, 21 Wn. App. 318, 584 P.2d 990 (1978), and State v. Wilson, supra.
In defendant Jeter's case I would defer to the Superior Court's finding that the officers had a good faith concern for their safety and were justified in not observing the knock and announce statute. There is substantial support for such a finding in that the officers knew or had a reasonable belief that: Jeter was a twice-convicted felon; was a heroin user; presently possessed heroin — a felony and violation of his parole status; was subject to a life sentence as a habitual criminal if convicted of a new felony; might presently be under the influence of heroin; and most importantly, kept near at hand a .357 magnum, a weapon not normally used for sport. This case is, therefore, not unlike People v. Hammond, 54 Cal. 2d 846, 357 P.2d 289, 9 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1960), where the court states at page 854:
At the time of their entry the officers had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant actually was engaged in the commission of a felony, i.e., the unlawful posses*365sion of narcotics [heroin]; that he had a gun; and that he was under the influence of heroin. . . . [T]hey were entitled to conclude that if they informed the defendant of their presence and demanded admission before breaking into the premises, he might attempt to dispose of the narcotics then in his possession, or might attempt to obtain and use his gun.
In the context of a protective search of premises for a possible armed accomplice, the test has been stated as follows:
[T]he Fourth Amendment, at the minimum, requires that the officers have reasonable cause to believe that, in carrying out their duty to arrest, their safety would be endangered, i.e., the question is "whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger."
State v. Johnson, 11 Wn. App. 311, 314, 522 P.2d 1179 (1974), quoting from State v. Toliver, 5 Wn. App. 321, 487 P.2d 264 (1971).
I submit the question therefore ought to be whether a reasonably prudent officer in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety would be imperiled if he is forced to comply with the knock and announce statute. Bearing in mind an occupant's Fourth Amendment rights, the trial court's resolution of the issue should prevail, if supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, the issue of whether the magistrate's inclusion of a "no knock" authorization in the warrant is of any significance was not briefed. This is an issue on which the authorities and courts differ. See generally 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 4.8(g) (1978). Therefore, it should not be addressed gratuitously.
Defendant's other assignments of error being without merit, I would affirm the trial court in all respects.
Reconsideration denied October 28, 1981.
Review denied by Supreme Court January 22, 1982.