§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).