People v. Superior Court

[580]

FLEMING, J.

Mandate. The People seek to annul a ruling of the superior court suppressing evidence seized during arrests which did not fully comply with the requirements of Penal Code section 844.

The prosecution arose from the sale of narcotics at a given premises to a police informer, a sale immediately followed by police entry into the premises, arrests, and a search which disclosed the narcotics later suppressed as .evidence. Before entering the premises to make their arrests the police officers knocked, announced they were police officers, waited about a minute during which they could hear noises inside, and then broke in. They did not formally demand admittance nor explain the purpose for which they desired admittance, as Required by Penal Code section 844. Defendants argue that lack of full compliance with the section stigmatized the evidence as evidence seized in the course of an illegal arrest. The People argue that the police substantially complied with the requirements of section 844 before breaking in to make their arrests.

The requirements of section 844 are three: (1) identification by the police;

(2)

explanation of their purpose; and (3) demand for entry. Essentially, the theory of substantial compliance derives from general maxims of jurisprudence, that substance governs over form, that no one is required to perform an idle act. (Civ. Code, §§ 3528, 3532.) The application of the theory is seen in

People

v.

Cockrell,

63 Cal.2d 659 [47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116], which held sufficient the police identification and request for entry in that ease, and in

People

v.

Marshall,

69 Cal.2d 51 [69 Cal.Rptr. 585, 442 P.2d 665], which held that persistent knocking by the police, announcement of their identity, and demand for entry complied with the section. The limits of the theory of substantial compliance appear in