Court Opinion

ID: 9790912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:18.333258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.617112
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. I do not agree, however, with its conclusion that the police did not violate ORS 133.575(2) when they broke down the door “two seconds” or “no more than two seconds” after they announced their presence.
The majority asserts that “[tjhere was a pause, even though very short, between announcement and entry.” 99 Or App at 585. The court found that the police entered immediately after their knock and announcement. I note that the prosecuting attorney conceded to the court that what occurred, “may constitute a violation of the ‘knock and announce’ statute.”
In my view, police violate the statute if they enter a residence, pursuant to a search warrant, immediately after or while knocking and announcing, see State v. Ford, 99 Or App 1, 780 P2d 1192 (1989), or without waiting a reasonable time after knocking and announcing for the occupants to respond. See United States v. Johnson, 643 F Supp 1465, 1471 (D Or 1986). It is not enough simply to state, as does the majority, “[b]ecause the announcement was given here before entry, the statute was not violated.” 99 Or App at 585. The majority’s interpretation makes the statute ineffectual.
On the other hand, the violation of ORS 133.575(2) was not aggravated because, except for the rapidity of entry *588after announcing their identity, the officers’ conduct was unexceptional. See State v. Ford, supra. Furthermore, even if the statutory violation here rose to the level of a constitutional violation, the officers, as the trial court found, had a reasonable belief that only a small quantity of illegal drugs probably remained in the house when they executed the warrant. That evidence might have been destroyed if, after knocking and announcing, they did not enter immediately. See State v. Berardinelli, 95 Or App 364, 368, 769 P2d 235, rev den 308 Or 79 (1989).
I also concur with the majority that the court correctly denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.