Skip to content
Name: In re Frank S.
Case #: A110995
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 08/21/2006
Summary

Police officers suspected that the appellant minor was in violation of his parole, and followed him to a house. When the officer approached the house, he heard a “commotion’ inside. He saw appellant, who was sitting on a couch, through a sliding glass door. The officer did not knock or announce, opened the door, and arrested appellant. Marijuana was found in his pockets. Following his conviction for marijuana possession, appellant contended on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence discovered in the search incident to arrest. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that although there was a knock-and-announce violation, it did not justify application of the exclusionary rule, and therefore counsel was not ineffective in failing to move to suppress the evidence. The United States Supreme Court held in Hudson v. Michigan that the exclusionary rule is inapplicable to knock and announce requirements.