Court Opinion

ID: 9543388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:45:03.878598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:15.481475
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring).
I join in the majority opinion, but I think it important to add a note of caution. In the present case, nothing indicates that the officer intentionally executed the warrant when Mr. Buck was not at home so as to achieve what amounted to a no-knock search without prior judicial authorization. Should such a practice be brought to this Court’s attention, we would have to fashion a suitable remedy to maintain the integrity of the legislative pronouncement in section 77-23-10 of the Code that police officers must give notice of their authority and purpose before entering premises to be searched. Cf. Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 589, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 1757, 20 L.Ed.2d 828 (1968) (importance of notice requirement); State v. Hygh, 711 P.2d 264, 273 (Utah 1985) (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (propriety of fashioning a remedy for violations of state constitution’s search and seizure provision); State v. Bishop, 288 Or. 349, 352-53, 605 P.2d 642, 643 (1980) (propriety of adopting a remedy if violation of comparable statute were to become com*704monplace); Note, Announcement in Police Entries, 80 Yale L.J. 139, 152-54 (1970-71) (importance and purpose of notice requirement).
DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.