What is the test for a search warrant to enter and search an apartment without a warrant?

Appellant concedes that an emergency is an exception to the general requirement for a warrant to enter and search an apartment. He questions its application in this case. The officers' concerns were reasonable in view of the circumstances they observed. People v. Solario (1977) 19 Cal.3d 760, 763-764, 139 Cal.Rptr. 725, 566 P.2d 627, guides our decision. The officers were not required to knock and announce themselves or ask for permission to enter. To do so would impede them in protecting the householder's privacy and property. "Worse, it would jeopardize the officers' safety, as well as the safety of the householder and other innocent persons present on the premises, by giving the burglar the opportunity to fortify his position and to take hostages." (Id., at p. 764, 139 Cal.Rptr. 725, 566 P.2d 627.) Nor were the officers required to leave and ignore what they saw. The officers did not violate anyone's right to privacy by entering the residence--they protected the resident's rights. Their actions were proper. Indeed, under the circumstances, the officers would properly have been subject to serious criticism if they had not checked the apartment further.

Appellant must show that counsel's acts or omissions resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense. (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 289, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 618 P.2d 149.) Appellant shows no reasonable probability that any meritorious defense was withdrawn. To the contrary, the evidence at trial shows why his attorney did not move to suppress the evidence--the motion would not have been meritorious.

[163 Cal.App.3d 247] Appellant's trial counsel did not deprive him of any meritorious defense, and cannot be found incompetent for not formally moving to suppress the ring. "It is not incumbent upon trial counsel to advance meritless arguments or to undertake useless procedural challenges merely to create a record impregnable to assault for claimed inadequacy of counsel." (People v. Shelburne (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 737, 744, 163 Cal.Rptr. 767.)