Boone

People v. Boone

Good Law
1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1432·2 Cal. App. 3d 503·82 Cal. Rptr. 566
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 1969Crim. 15752California1,779 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fleming, J.

In view of the fact that the arresting officers were dressed in plainclothes and using an unmarked vehicle when they forced entry into defendant’s residence at night, can we hold that the requirements of section 844 of the Penal Code had been met?

We have heretofore identified the essential requirements of section 844 as (1) identification of themselves by the police; (2) explanation of their purpose; and (3) demand for entry. (People v. Superior Court, 274 Cal.App. 2d 578 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 55 ].) These requirements may be satisfied by literal compliance, or by substantial compliance, or their performance in a given instance may be excused.

Literal compliance is not a factor here, and hence requires no comment.

Substantial compliance expresses a rule of interpretation which derives from general maxims of equity—that substance governs over form, that no one is required to perform an idle act. (Civ. Code, §§ 3528, 3532.) Hence if the essence of a requirement has been met, or if its performance would be superfluous, then the law holds that the requirement has been substantially complied with. The application of the rule may be seen in People v. Cockrell, 63 Cal.2d 659 [ 47…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.