¶1(dissenting) — I dissent. Clearly, under the facts of this case the officers of the Kelso Police Department did not comply with the provisions of RCW 10.31.040, the so-called "knock and announce" rule. According to that rule, police officers are not to enter a house to serve a search warrant unless and until they have announced their office and purpose and are "refused admittance." Here, the officers announced their office and presence, however, they entered the dwelling without ever requesting admittance. Indeed, the officers entered the dwelling immediately after announcing that they were Kelso police officers and they did not even wait to hear if they were to be denied entrance or invited in.
¶2The majority says that officers need not comply with the language of the statute because to do so would be a useless gesture. I disagree. The knock and announce rule, as the majority observed, is designed to reduce violence and to the degree possible, protect privacy. State v. Coyle, 95 Wn.2d 1, 5, 621 P.2d 1256 (1980). Neither of these purposes was served by the officers' conduct here. Certainly, the privacy of the inhabitants of the home sought to be searched was disturbed in a most abrupt manner. More importantly, the manner in which the police officers entered the home increased the potential for violence. It seems obvious that persons who are instantly confronted with a person barging through their doorway are more likely to act in a violent way to repel the apparent intruder than would persons who are given time to reflect. The Legislature has wisely required officers to request admittance in order to cool off *913what could otherwise be a potentially violent atmosphere. We should not blithely ignore that requirement.
¶3The facts of the case are substantially different than those in State v. Lehman, 40 Wn. App. 400, 404, 698 P.2d 606, review denied, 104 Wn.2d 1009 (1985), relied upon by the majority. There the officers went to the door and knocked. When the door was opened about 12 inches the officers identified themselves and told the person opening the door they had a warrant to search the house. They continued speaking to the person at the door for an amount of time sufficient to allow them to make certain observations about other persons in the house. The officers then entered. While, in my judgment, the knock and announce rule was technically violated in Lehman, there was, at least, a significantly greater pause at the door by the officers in that case than we have here. In Lehman, it seems apparent that the occupants were given notice that the officers intended to search and there was an opportunity for them to indicate their views about the officer's announced purpose. Here, the officers gave Shelly no time to react to their presence. It seems obvious that the rule was violated and any evidence seized as a result of the search should have been suppressed.
¶4Reconsideration denied October 25, 1990.
¶5Review denied at 116 Wn.2d 1015 (1991).