Jeter v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 1983 No. A016529Published

Before: Poche

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the police officers' entry into the petitioner's home was unlawful because they failed to comply with the knock-and-notice requirements of Penal Code section 1531, as they lacked a reasonable basis to conclude they were being refused entry. Consequently, the evidence seized during the search must be excluded, and the motion to set aside the information should have been granted.

Issues

Whether police officers' entry into a residence to execute a search warrant violated Penal Code section 1531 when they waited only five to ten seconds after knocking and announcing their presence without evidence of refusal.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 1531 permits an officer executing a search warrant to break into the premises only if he is refused admission after announcing “his authority and purpose.””

“an entry effected in violation of the knock and notice requirements of section 1531 renders any subsequent search and seizure unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment”

Opinion

POCHÉ, J.

By petition for writ of prohibition (Pen. Code, § 999a),

Maurice Jeter challenges the admission of certain evidence at his preliminary hearing alleging that the evidence was the product of an improper entry into his home to execute a search warrant.

Testimony at the preliminary hearing revealed that Officer Munoz, accompanied by four other police officers, arrived at 1224 Fruitvale Avenue about 11 a.m. on July 30, 1981, to serve a search warrant. No surveillance of the premises was undertaken. The officers drove up and parked. Then Officer Munoz knocked on the front door and yelled, “police officers, we have a search warrant. ” He waited a “few seconds” and knocked and yelled again. After waiting “five or ten seconds,” he turned the handle and pushed open the door. Upon entering the residence he saw petitioner and Mr. Brown in a sleeping loft: petitioner was sitting on the bed unclad and Brown was asleep.

Evidence seized in the ensuing search was admitted over objection at the preliminary hearing. The magistrate ruled that there had been a reasonable and proper entrance. The superior court denied petitioner’s motion to set aside the information pursuant to section 995 and petitioner filed a timely petition for writ of prohibition with this court. (See § 999a.)

[937]

Section 1531 permits an officer executing a search warrant to break into the premises only if he is refused admission after announcing “his authority and purpose.” Even where the police duly announce their identity and purpose, forcible entry is not permitted under the statute if the occupants of the premises are not first given an opportunity to surrender the premises voluntarily.

(People

Abdon

(1972) 30 Cal.App.3d 972, 976-977 [106 Cal.Rptr. 879].) Petitioner here did not refuse permission, but the People, citing

People

Elder

Jeter v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief