State v. Hatcher

22 Citing cases

  1. State v. Steen

    164 Wn. App. 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 10 times
    Upholding conviction of obstruction where defendant refused to open door to the police

    Nevertheless, we recount this testimony here to point out that the dissent's reliance on cases stating that citizens have special protection against governmental intrusions into their homes is misplaced. See Dissent at 915 (quoting Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); State v. Hatcher, 3 Wash.App. 441, 446, 475 P.2d 802 (1970)). ¶ 7 Terrones repeatedly asked Steen for his name and date of birth while he sat in the back of the patrol car.

  2. State v. Steen

    No. 39635-1-II (Wash. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2011)

    Nevertheless, we recount this testimony here to point out that the dissent's reliance on cases stating that citizens have special protection against governmental intrusions into their homes is misplaced. See Dissent at 25 (quoting Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307, 78 S. Ct. 1190, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1332 (1958); State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 446, 475 P.2d 802 (1970)). Terrones repeatedly asked Steen for his name and date of birth while he sat in the back of the patrol car.

  3. State v. Miller

    7 Wn. App. 414 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 25 times
    In Miller, evidence was seized during a search conducted by a police officer who surreptitiously entered the premises through a side door which had inadvertently been left open.

    The court held the officers had reasonable cause to believe from what they heard on arrival at the house that destruction of evidence would follow announcement of purpose and demand for admittance and that accordingly, exigent circumstances excused the necessity for announcement of purpose and demand for admittance. State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970) is a case in which the court affirmed the trial court's order suppressing evidence obtained in executing a search warrant in a manner violative of the Fourth Amendment. The court reviewed the Ker and Young cases and held that there were no exigent circumstances in that case that excused compliance with the "knock and announce" rule.

  4. State v. Dugger

    12 Wn. App. 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 16 times
    In Dugger, Division One noted that the mere possibility of destruction of evidence is insufficient to create an exigent circumstance, and although concern for officer safety can create the requisite exigency, such concern must be supported by "[s]ome credible evidence, such as knowledge that the occupants might possess weapons and be predisposed to respond violently."

    In Washington, a violation of the rule, unless excused by exigent circumstances ( see State v. Young, supra), requires that any evidence thereby obtained be suppressed. State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970); State v. Miller, supra; Coleman v. Reilly, 8 Wn. App. 684, 508 P.2d 1035 (1973); State v. Johnson, 11 Wn. App. 311, 522 P.2d 1179 (1974). The State asserts, however, that the presence of the undercover officer inside the premises prior to the entry of the other officers distinguishes this case from prior cases.

  5. U.S. v. Moore

    956 F.2d 843 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 86 times
    Holding evidence obtained in violation of federal knock-and-announce requirements did not have to be excluded because the officers reasonably believed the no-knock warrant complied with the state law and the Fourth Amendment

    Numerous state courts have considered the constitutional issue; the decisions are in conflict, with the Supreme Court of Nebraska's judicial notice position being in the minority.Compare Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala. App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, 559-60 (Ala.Cr.App.) cert. denied, 286 Ala. 740, 238 So.2d 560 (1970); State v. Mendoza, 104 Ariz. 395, 454 P.2d 140, 144-45 (1969); People v. Gastelo, 67 Cal.2d 586, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 12, 432 P.2d 706, 708 (1967); State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Sup. 197, 308 A.2d 251, 252 (1973); People v. Ouellette, 78 Ill.2d 511, 36 Ill.Dec. 666, 669-70, 401 N.E.2d 507, 510-11 (1979); State v. Dusch, 259 Ind. 507, 289 N.E.2d 515, 518 (1972); Commonwealth v. Scalise, 387 Mass. 413, 439 N.E.2d 818, 823 (1982); State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323, 200 N.W.2d 403, 410 (1972); Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 Pa. 441, 240 A.2d 795, 798 (1968); State v. Carufel, 112 R.I. 664, 314 A.2d 144, 147 (1974); Heaton v. Commonwealth, 215 Va. 137, 207 S.E.2d 829, 831 (1974); State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802, 804-05 (1970); State v. Cleveland, 118 Wis.2d 615, 348 N.W.2d 512, 519-20 (1984) (all rejecting a blanket rule), with People v. Lujan, 174 Colo. 554, 484 P.2d 1238, 1241 (1971); Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518, 204 A.2d 516, 519-20 (1964); People v. DeLago, 16 N.Y.2d 289, 266 N.Y.S.2d 353, 356, 213 N.E.2d 659, 661 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 963, 86 S.Ct. 1235, 16 L.Ed.2d 305 (1966); State v. Meyer, 209 Neb. 757, 311 N.W.2d 520, 524 (1981); State v. Loucks, 209 N.W.2d 772, 777-78 (N.D. 1973); State v. Spisak, 520 P.2d 561, 562-63 (Utah 1974) (all upholding a blanket rule). The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry always turns on the facts of a particular case.

  6. State v. Daniels

    294 Minn. 323 (Minn. 1972)   Cited 17 times

    " Reynolds v. State, 46 Ala. App. 77, 238 So.2d 557, certiorari denied, 286 Ala. 740, 238 So.2d 560 (1970); State v. Mendoza, 104 Ariz. 395, 454 P.2d 140 (1969); and State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970), are others in that line of cases. The other line of cases, holding that a blanket rule permitting unannounced entry in narcotics cases does not affront constitutional standards, include People v. Lujan, 174 Colo. 554, 484 P.2d 1238 (1971); People v. Hartfield, 94 Ill. App.2d 421, 237 N.E.2d 193 (1968); Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518, 204 A.2d 516 (1964); State v. Johnson, 102 R.I. 344, 230 A.2d 831 (1967).

  7. State v. Jeter

    30 Wn. App. 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 18 times
    In Jeter, we similarly held that the mere knowledge that a convicted felon kept a gun by his bed was insufficient to show exigent circumstances absent specific information that the defendant was predisposed to use the gun, and the risk of destruction of evidence was likewise an insufficient basis because there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant might destroy contraband.

    No blanket exception exists for narcotics cases, in spite of the relative ease of disposal of drugs. State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970). In the present case, police observed no such activities at the scene and had no specific information on defendant's likelihood to destroy contraband.

  8. State v. Russell

    25 Wn. App. 933 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 30 times
    In State v. Russell, 25 Wn. App. 933, 611 P.2d 1320 (1980), it was held that a principal would be treated the same as an accomplice and that RCW 9.41.025 could be applied to an accomplice even though the principal was unarmed and unaware the accomplice had a gun.

    A violation of this rule, unless excused by exigent circumstances, requires that any evidence thereby obtained be suppressed. State v. Johnson, 11 Wn. App. 311, 522 P.2d 1179 (1974); State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970). The defendant maintains that RCW 10.31.040 applies to the breaking of an inner door for the purpose of making an arrest of additional suspects and that no exigent circumstances existed which would excuse compliance with the statute.

  9. State v. Diana

    24 Wn. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 59 times
    In Washington v. Diana, 24 Wn. App. 908, 604 P.2d 1312 (1979), the defendant suffered from multiple sclerosis and claimed medical necessity as a defense to a charge of possession of marijuana.

    Considering the totality of the circumstances, the police acted reasonably in entering the house immediately without first stopping to comply with the knock and wait rule. State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970) and State v. Johnson, supra, relied upon by the defendant, are distinguishable. In Hatcher, a drug case, the officers viewed the defendant through an open window sitting in a chair asleep.

  10. State v. Edwards

    19 Wn. App. 1050 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    In Edwards, police serving a search warrant for drugs knocked on the door and saw a man appear at a nearby window and then quickly disappear.

    In Washington, a violation of the rule, unless excused by exigent circumstances, requires that any evidence thereby obtained be suppressed. State v. Johnson, 11 Wn. App. 311, 522 P.2d 1179 (1974); State v. Hatcher, 3 Wn. App. 441, 475 P.2d 802 (1970). In a case similar to the one at bar, State v. Lowrie, supra at 157, the court made the following observation: