Page 189 |
Previous | 189 of 847 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 165
State v. Watson
row and Covington, to the effect that entrance must be
demanded and denied before a police officer can proceed
to forcibly enter a dwelling for the purpose of making an
arrest." State v. Harvey, supra, at 11, 187 S.E. 2d at 713.
Thus our court has given approval to a forcible entrance of a
dwelling to serve an arrest warrant under special conditions and
circumstances.
In Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 10 L.Ed. 2d 726, 83
S.Ct 1623 (1963), the United States Supreme Court recognized
that an entry could be made by officers without notice of au-thority
and demand for admittance, even without a warrant,
when there was reasonable ground to believe that the occupant
was in possession of narcotics which could be quickly and easily
destroyed, quoting with approval from People v. Maddox, 46
Cal. 2d 301, 306, 294 P. 2d 6, 9, cert. den., 352 U.S. 858, 1 L.Ed.
2d 65,77 S.Ct. 81 (1956) :
" . . . Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy
or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guaran-tees
are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a
place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he
would, had he complied with section 844 (California statute
similar to G.S. 15-44 requiring a demand for admittance).
Moreover, since the demand and explanation requirements
of section 844 are a codification of the common law, they
may reasonably be interpreted as limited by the common
law rules that compliance is not required if the officer's
peril would have been increased or the arrest frustrated
had he demanded entrance and stated his purpose. . . .
Without the benefit of hindsight and ordinarily on the spur
of the moment, the officer must decide these questions in
the first instance." Ker v. California, supra, at 39-40, 10
L.Ed. 2d at 741-42, 83 S.Ct. at 1633.
While under ordinary circumstances the officers must
announce their purpose and demand admittance before making a
forcible entry to conduct a search pursuant to a valid search
warrant, such an entry may be proper under special and emer-gency
conditions when it reasonably appears that such an an-nouncement
and demand by the officer and the delay consequent
thereto would provoke the escape of the suspect, place the officer
in peril, or cause the destruction of disposition of critical evi-dence.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.019, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 19, Spring Session 1973 - Fall Session Session 1973. Cited as 19 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 37.5 MB; 848 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_019.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 189 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 165 State v. Watson row and Covington, to the effect that entrance must be demanded and denied before a police officer can proceed to forcibly enter a dwelling for the purpose of making an arrest." State v. Harvey, supra, at 11, 187 S.E. 2d at 713. Thus our court has given approval to a forcible entrance of a dwelling to serve an arrest warrant under special conditions and circumstances. In Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 10 L.Ed. 2d 726, 83 S.Ct 1623 (1963), the United States Supreme Court recognized that an entry could be made by officers without notice of au-thority and demand for admittance, even without a warrant, when there was reasonable ground to believe that the occupant was in possession of narcotics which could be quickly and easily destroyed, quoting with approval from People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 306, 294 P. 2d 6, 9, cert. den., 352 U.S. 858, 1 L.Ed. 2d 65,77 S.Ct. 81 (1956) : " . . . Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guaran-tees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with section 844 (California statute similar to G.S. 15-44 requiring a demand for admittance). Moreover, since the demand and explanation requirements of section 844 are a codification of the common law, they may reasonably be interpreted as limited by the common law rules that compliance is not required if the officer's peril would have been increased or the arrest frustrated had he demanded entrance and stated his purpose. . . . Without the benefit of hindsight and ordinarily on the spur of the moment, the officer must decide these questions in the first instance." Ker v. California, supra, at 39-40, 10 L.Ed. 2d at 741-42, 83 S.Ct. at 1633. While under ordinary circumstances the officers must announce their purpose and demand admittance before making a forcible entry to conduct a search pursuant to a valid search warrant, such an entry may be proper under special and emer-gency conditions when it reasonably appears that such an an-nouncement and demand by the officer and the delay consequent thereto would provoke the escape of the suspect, place the officer in peril, or cause the destruction of disposition of critical evi-dence. |
