State v. Olson
Decision Date | 31 July 1979 |
Docket Number | No. C,C |
Citation | 287 Or. 157,598 P.2d 670 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Kent Gallant OLSON, Petitioner. 76-12-17439; DA 129621; CA 8276; SC 25891. . * |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
William N. Mehlhaf, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., and John W. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Defendant was charged with burglary in the first degree. His motion to quash evidence of items of personal property seized in his home as well as evidence of certain statements and a confession he made at the time of his arrest was allowed. The state appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's allowance of the motion. 34 Or.App. 511, 579 P.2d 277 (1978). This court granted review.
There is no dispute of consequence about the facts. The complaining witness and his family left their home and went out to dinner about 6 p. m. When they returned at 8 p. m. they found their house had been burglarized. They notified the police, who immediately responded. It was learned that a neighbor had seen a youth, who was known to the neighbor, and a man in front of complainant's home. The police contacted the youth, who said he and defendant had been looking for defendant's dog. The police, however, found the youth in possession of property taken from complainant's home which he said defendant had given to him. The youth took the police to where defendant lived. By this time it was 10 to 11 p. m. Defendant's car, which was parked in front of his home, was identified by the youth. The house was dark, and the police knocked loudly and announced, "This is the sheriff's office." They heard a noise from within the home but no one came to the door. After shining a light in various windows attempting to see inside, the officers returned to the door and knocked again, this time with a flash light, and again announced that they were from the sheriff's office. Receiving no response, the officers then opened the door, entered the house, and found defendant in bed with his girlfriend. The officers were aware at the time of their entry that a handgun and possibly some ammunition had been taken in the burglary. However, they did not draw their guns at the time of entry, and all officers testified that after the door was opened defendant said, "Come in." Loot from the burglary was found in the house and incriminating statements were made by defendant in spite of his having been given the Miranda warning. Shortly after being arrested he made a confession.
Two issues are raised by defendant's petition for review. The first is a claim that the police's failure, after knocking, to announce their purpose before forcefully entering defendant's residence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution 1 and of Article I, section 9, of the Constitution of Oregon. 2 The second contention is that absent exigent circumstances, the police's entry without a warrant of arrest was a violation of the same constitutional restrictions. The Court of Appeals held that knocking and announcing the identity of those seeking entrance was constitutionally sufficient despite the police's failure to state their purpose for seeking entry. The Court of Appeals declined to reach the question of the police's right to entry without an arrest warrant upon the basis that defendant's written motion to quash did not raise the issue. 3 The following was contained in the court's order quashing the evidence:
"The forcible nighttime entry by the police into the defendant's dwelling was made when there was ample time to obtain an arrest warrant; there being no exigent circumstances to justify the entry into the defendant's dwelling house and his subsequent arrest therein without the utilization of the warrant process."
There can be no doubt that the lack of an arrest warrant was a basis for the trial court's ruling. We know of no rule or statute which limits the trial judge to the reasons stated in the motion to quash, if, upon a hearing, it develops that the facts are such that the evidence should be quashed for reasons other than those specified in the motion, the judge chooses to act upon them, and there is no claim of lack of opportunity by the state to present evidence. The "knock and announce" rule presupposes that the police have a right to entry. In the absence of such a right, there is no occasion to consider whether the "knock and announce" rule has been complied with in a constitutionally proper manner. We therefore conclude that the first question to be answered is whether the police had a right to enter defendant's premises without a warrant for defendant's arrest.
Neither this court nor the United States Supreme Court has decided whether, absent exigent circumstances or hot pursuit, police officers who have probable cause to arrest a person may forcibly enter a person's home for that purpose in the absence of having secured a warrant. See State v. Girard, 276 Or. 511, 514, 555 P.2d 445 (1976); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 45, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 47 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976), Mr. Justice Marshall dissenting; United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418 n.6, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113 n.13, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 480-81, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499-500, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958). This question is now squarely presented to us.
ORS 133.310 provides:
ORS 133.235(5) provides:
"In order to make an arrest, a peace officer may enter premises in which he has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested to be present."
We are thus brought to a consideration of whether ORS 133.235(5) is constitutional if applied to permit police entry under the facts of this case.
The words of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are substantially identical as they relate to the present problem:
" * * * right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, * * * against unreasonable * * * searches and seizures * * * no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause * * * particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If probable cause to arrest is all a police officer needs to make constitutionally reasonable a forced entry into a person's house to arrest him, it is obvious that there will be little necessity for the officer ever to get a warrant; the requirement for entry without a warrant and for getting a warrant would be the same. Yet the constitutional provisions obviously must contemplate situations in which a warrant is required.
Many courts have paid lip service to the proposition that absent exigent circumstances it is necessary to have a warrant to forcibly enter a person's home for the purpose of his arrest. However, most courts successfully avoid the effects of such a rule by finding exigent circumstances. Without its having actually taken the step, the United States Supreme Court has come as close as possible to saying that a warrant is necessary where no exigent circumstances exist. Illustrative is the following language of the plurality opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra 403 U.S. at 477-81, 91 S.Ct. at 2044-2045:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Of Or. v. Hall
...court has applied that consideration. Although it was based upon Fourth Amendment precedents, this court's decision in State v. Olson, 287 Or. 157, 598 P.2d 670 (1979), is on point. In that case, the defendant made inculpatory statements to the police after officers had made a forcible nigh......
-
Box v. State
...statutes do not give law enforcement officers authority to enter a home or the protected areas surrounding it. State v. Olson , 287 Or. 157, 164-65, 598 P.2d 670 (1979) ("[B]oth the Oregon and the United States Constitutions dictate that where exigent circumstances which militate against se......
-
State v. Rodriguez
...cause for his arrest. Defendant contends instead that the arrest was unreasonable under the rule stated by this court in State v. Olson, 287 Or. 157, 598 P.2d 670 (1979). In Olson, this court held that, under Article I, section 9, "where exigent circumstances which militate against securing......
-
State v. Jordan
...the person to be arrested to be present." The Court of Appeals' opinion was written prior to this court's decisions in State v. Olson, 287 Or. 157, 598 P.2d 670 (1979), and State v. Peller, 287 Or. 255, 598 P.2d 684 (1979), in which we held that an entry into a private home to arrest, witho......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...539 A.2d 714, 715 (N.H. 1988); State v. Jones, 503 A.2d 802, 805 (N.H. 1985); State v. Henry, 627 A.2d 125 128 (NJ. 1993); State v. Olson, 598 P.2d 670, 671 (Or. 1979); Duquette v. Godbout, 47;A.2d 1359, 1361 (R.I. 1984); Vasquez v. State, 739 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Text Crim. App. 1987) (en bane);......
-
What Is a "reason to Believe"? Execution of an Arrest Warrant at a Suspect's Residence Should Require Probable Cause
...to arrest an individual in the absence of a sufficient reason for why no warrant was obtained); State v. Olson, 287 Ore. 157, 164-65, 598 P.2d 670, 674 (1979) (concluding probable cause alone does not justify warrantless entry into the home to effectuate an arrest); State v. McNeal, 162 W. ......