¶1I dissent.
¶2I would affirm the judgment. I do not agree with the majority that the contraband was obtained as the result of an unconstitutional search and seizure. The officers made a consensual entry for the purpose of investigating information obtained from a citizen informer as to possible criminal activity. Penal Code section 844 is inapplicable to such an entry. (See Mann v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 1, 8-9 [88 Cal.Rptr. 380, 472 P.2d 468].) I do not agree that the entry was obtained as a result of trickery or subterfuge. *77The police knocked on the door and asked for the Sears repairman. Defendant Huff’s action in stating “he is in the kitchen” and pointing in that direction was clearly a consent and invitation to the officers to enter. The majority’s reliance upon Roberts and Hodson to support the conclusion to the contrary is misplaced. Neither is authority for the proposition that the entry in the instant case was obtained by trickery, stealth or subterfuge. The announcement requirements of section 844 were not applicable under the facts of this case. (See Mann, supra; People v. Boone, 2 Cal.App.3d 66, 68-70 [82 Cal.Rptr. 398].)
¶3Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 24, 1971. Burke, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.