§803-11 Entering house to arrest. Whenever it is necessary to enter a house to arrest an offender, and entrance is refused, the officer or person making the arrest may force an entrance by breaking doors or other barriers. But before breaking any door, the officer or person shall first demand entrance in a loud voice, and state that the officer or person is the bearer of a warrant of arrest; or if it is in a case in which arrest is lawful without warrant, the officer or person shall substantially state that information in an audible voice. [PC 1869, c 49, §10; RL 1925, §3976; RL 1935, §5410; RL 1945, §10711; RL 1955, §255-11; HRS §708-11; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]
Cross References
See Const. art. I, §7.
Case Notes
Breaking gate, when proper. 1 H. 72 (1852).
Section not implicated where entry is gained through an open door without use of force. 83 H. 13, 924 P.2d 181 (1996).
Where a ruse is accompanied by the use of force to gain entry during the execution of either a search or arrest warrant, police officers are required to comply with the knock and announce rule. 98 H. 18, 41 P.3d 174 (2002).
Because it violates the plain language of this section, the doctrine of substantial compliance, that "substantial compliance" with this section is legally sufficient in the absence of exigent circumstances, is expressly rejected. 108 H. 436, 121 P.3d 901 (2005).
Where the police opened a closed screen door and broke the threshold of defendant's dwelling prior to announcing that they bore an arrest warrant and failed to wait a reasonable time after demanding entry, this section was violated; thus, subsequent search of defendant's home and seizure of evidence therefrom were inadmissible. 108 H. 436, 121 P.3d 901 (2005).
Where officers failed to state they were bearers of an arrest warrant before "breaking" the screen door and failed to wait a "reasonable time" after demanding entrance before "breaking" the door and crossing the threshold, the officers did not satisfy the "knock and announce" rule nor did they comply with the requirements of this section and the trial court's conclusions of law to the contrary were erroneous. 108 H. 446 (App.), 121 P.3d 911 (2005).
Cited: 22 H. 597, 602 (1915), questioned 26 H. 363 (1922).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.