Court Opinion

ID: 9569881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:18:15.296328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:12.576135
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. The police officers in the instant case had reasonable grounds for their good faith belief that the defendant would destroy the evidence if they did not forcibly enter defendant’s house. The majority rely on 20/20 hindsight and three cases to hold otherwise. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (Opinion of Brennan, J.); Heaton v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 137, 207 S.E.2d 829 (1974); State v. Lowrie, 12 Wash.App. 155, 528 P.2d 1010 (1974). The fact that defendant was found in bed and that no one in the house was attempting to destroy evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the forcible entry in the instant case. The relevant question is, as stated by the majority, what was in the officers’ minds prior to the entry. State v. Baca, 87 N.M. 12, 528 P.2d 656 (Ct.App.1974). As the majority recognizes, the officers minds contained the following information: (1) probable cause to believe that defendant’s house had heroin in it, (2) an informant’s tip that the officers had better act quickly because defendant had a gun and the heroin would be flushed down the toilet, (3) a loud yell by a female in the house, (4) noise in the house, (5) movement of people in the house and (6) the announcement by the officers that they were the police, which announcement came prior to the yell, noise and movement. It is true that Mr. Justice Brennan’s opinion in Ker, states that ambiguous conduct cannot form the basis for a reasonable belief that evidence is being destroyed. However, that opinion recognizes that the same conduct, coupled with a showing of awareness by the occupants of the officers’ presence, would be unambiguous conduct justifying a forcible entry. In Heaton, the only fact known was the readily disposable nature of the contraband. In Lowrie, the officers were in plain clothes and did not announce that they were officers, nor was there any evidence of activity or noise in the house. In the case at bar, we have all the factors missing from the Heaton and Lowrie cases. Also, missing is the factor that makes ambiguous conduct unambiguous according to Mr. Justice Brennan in Ker. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s decision admitting the evidence as being in compliance with State v. Baca, supra.