Court Opinion

ID: 9522481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:26:40.401022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:59.071483
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The trial court found:
In the present case the place to be searched was the basement apartment. The defendant was clearly not in the place to be searched at the time of the execution of the search warrant as required by Section 808.7. The issue raised by the facts of this case is the scope of the statutory requirement of “in the place. ” Section 808.7. The purposes of the statute are clearly set out in the “reasons” listed in the statute. In view of the purposes of the statute, the “place” could extend beyond the immediate confines of the apartment to persons remaining on a porch, in a hallway, or in an adjoining room. In the present case the place could arguably be extended to Mr. Atkinson based upon his proximity to the place to be searched and his apparent efforts to alert any occupants of the apartment to the approach of the police officers. However, it is clear that the defendant was not in the place to be searched. The defendant had left the basement apartment before the arrival of the police officers and made no effort to interfere in any manner with the actions of the police officers in executing the search warrant. The initial act of ordering the defendant to the ground in the driveway behind the house *669cannot be sustained under section 808.7 of the Code. (Emphasis added).
The majority has made findings that defendant was leaving when the officer arrived and attempted to thwart the execution.
I give consideration to the trial court’s findings, particularly as to the credibility of witnesses. I would affirm based on the trial court’s findings.