Volume 12 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule —</bold> <bold>Reasonableness.</bold> In the absence of exigent circumstances, the failure of police officers effecting a search to comply with the knock and wait rule renders it unreasonable and requires exclusion of any evidence thus obtained. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Purpose.</bold> The purpose of the knock and wait rule is not only to protect the individual's interest in his privacy but also to decrease the possibility of violence and guard against unnecessary injury to private property. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Prior Police</bold> <bold>Presence — Knowledge.</bold> Failure of police officers to comply with the knock and wait rule is not obviated by the presence therein, prior to their entry, of a police officer whose identity is unknown to the<page_number>Page 75</page_number> occupants and who makes no attempt himself to effect an arrest or seize evidence. [See 68 Am.Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures § 91.] <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Review.</bold> While an appellate court will defer to the trial court's assessment of oral testimony regarding exigent circumstances to justify a no-knock entry, it will endorse a justification finding only when it finds the evidence admitted to be constitutionally sufficient. <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Potential Danger.</bold> The general propensity to destroy evidence or an unsubstantiated concern for potential danger are insufficient evidence of exigent circumstances to justify a no-knock entry. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency</bold> <bold>of Evidence — Waiver.</bold> A criminal defendant waives his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him by proceeding to present his case in chief.

<bold>[1] Divorce and Dissolution — Custody of Children — Modification</bold> <bold>— Change in Circumstances — Necessity.</bold> A change in the child custody provisions of a divorce decree, including any provision relating to parental visitation, may be made whenever it is in the best interests of the children. A change in conditions <italic>may</italic> be the reason for a custody change being beneficial to the children. <bold>[2] Divorce and Dissolution — Custody of Children — Modification</bold> <bold>— Material Change — Breakdown in Communication.</bold> A breakdown in communication between divorced parents may constitute a material change in circumstances for purposes of a modification of the custody provisions of their divorce decree when such decree contemplated cooperation between the parents. [See 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation § 820.] <bold>[3] Divorce and Dissolution — Custody of Children — Modification</bold> <bold>— Review.</bold> In reviewing the modification of a divorce decree, an appellate court determines only whether such modification constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

<bold>[1] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Affidavit — Probable Cause</bold> <bold>— Degree of Proof.</bold> In order to support the issuance of a search warrant, an affidavit need not prove that a crime has been committed but must recite such underlying facts and circumstances as will permit a fair and independent magistrate, viewing the affidavit in a commonsense manner, to conclude that there is probable cause for its issuance. This determination is governed by a standard of reasonableness rather than by technical requirements of specificity. <bold>[2] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Probable Cause — Review.</bold> A magistrate's determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant may be based on his commonsense inferences from the facts and circumstances contained in an affidavit and should be treated with deference by a reviewing court. <bold>[3] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Effect.</bold> Noncompliance with the requirements of the knock and wait rule by officers executing a search warrant may be justified when exigent and necessitous circumstances exist. <bold>[4] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Prior Information.</bold> Exigent circumstances which justify noncompliance with the requirements of the knock and wait rule may exist when officers in possession of a search warrant have a reasonable belief based on reliable prior information that an individual in the premises to be searched will dispose of easily-destroyed evidence in a silent or otherwise undetectable manner if given sufficient warning of their presence. [See 68 Am.Jur.2d, Searches and Seizures § 91.] <bold>[5] Searches and Seizures — Knock and Wait Rule — Exigent</bold> <bold>Circumstances — Informant's Tip — Sufficiency.</bold> An officer's complete reliance upon an informant's tip in determining that exigent circumstances exist to justify noncompliance with the knock and wait rule will be upheld when such informant is reliable and speaks from personal knowledge, and the officer's testimony relating such matters is uncontradicted and unimpeached. <bold>[6] Evidence — Opinion Evidence — Expert Testimony —</bold> <bold>Qualification of Witness.</bold> The qualification of an expert witness is within the discretion of the trial court; any claimed deficiencies in such testimony do not affect its admissibility, but rather go to the weight it is to be given. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Trial — Continuance — Impeachment Testimony.</bold> A continuance need not be granted simply to secure impeachment testimony.<page_number>Page 482</page_number>

<bold>[1] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Discretion of Court — Standards.</bold> In exercising its judicial discretion to decline jurisdiction over a minor under RCW 13.04.120, a juvenile court must give consideration to applicable constitutional principles and guaranties as construed in court decisions, must act in conformity with the purpose of the juvenile court law, and is subject to the traditional restraint which governs an exercise of judicial discretion reviewable for abuse. <bold>[2] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Review.</bold> A juvenile court's discretionary determination to decline jurisdiction over a minor is reviewable for manifest abuse, <italic>i.e.,</italic> to determine whether such discretion was exercised on a ground, or to an extent, clearly untenable or manifestly unreasonable. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Statutes — Certainty — Test.</bold> A statute is void for vagueness if it does not apprise a man of common understanding of the nature of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense. <bold>[4] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Validity — Vagueness.</bold> RCW 13.04.120, which permits a juvenile court to decline its jurisdiction over a minor, contains sufficient standards for the exercise of such jurisdiction and is not void for vagueness. <bold>[5] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Validity — Overbreadth.</bold> The provision of RCW 13.04.120 relating to a juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction over a minor does not prohibit any conduct and is not unconstitutionally overbroad. <bold>[6] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Validity — Delegation of Legislative Authority — Equal</bold> <bold>Protection.</bold> RCW 13.04.120, which permits a juvenile court to decline jurisdiction<page_number>Page 565</page_number> over a minor, constitutes a valid recognition of judicial rather than a grant of legislative discretion and does not abridge equal protection rights. <bold>[7] Courts — Infants — Juvenile Court — Waiver of Jurisdiction —</bold> <bold>Considerations — Nature of Offense.</bold> The seriousness of the offense with which a juvenile is charged may be considered by a juvenile court in determining whether to decline jurisdiction. Such juvenile's eligibility for civil commitment is only one of several other factors which may also be considered. <bold>[8] Appeal and Error — Review — Undisputed Evidence.</bold> In reviewing a trial court's determination, an appellate court may consider undisputed evidence offered at trial in addition to the formal findings of fact to determine whether substantial evidence supports such holding. <bold>[9] Trial — Fair Trial — Conduct of Judge — Waiver.</bold> A party waives any objection he may have to a particular course of action by the trial judge by failing to object to the judge's announcement at trial of his intended conduct at the time the announcement is made. <bold>[10] Trial — Conduct of Judge — Questioning of Witnesses.</bold> A trial judge, in his discretion, may direct questions to witnesses.