Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3891 (2026)

Right of officer to break into building

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An officer, in order to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or when authorized to make such arrest for a felony without a warrant, as provided in section 13-3883, may break open a door or window of any building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if the officer is refused admittance after he has announced his authority and purpose.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: State v. Gerlaugh, 654 P.2d 800 (Ariz. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gerlaugh, 654 P.2d 800 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “Further, appellant contends the police violated the “knock and announce” rule, A.R.S. § 13-3891 2 (previously A.R.S. § 13-1411).”
State v. Mincey, 687 P.2d 1180 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “The trial court properly left it to the jury to draw its own conclusion as to what appellant meant in his conversation with Bush. LEGALITY OF ENTRY Appellant maintains that Officer Headricks failed to comply with the provisions of former A.”
State v. Smith, 599 P.2d 187 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 2× “" Renumbered § 13-3891, effective October 1, 1978. [6] Now renumbered § 13-3883, effective October 1, 1978.”
State v. Clary, 2 P.3d 1255 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “After notice of his authority and purpose, he receives no response within a reasonable time. 2. After notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.”
State v. Smith, 90 P.3d 221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 13-1411, now A.R.S. § 13-3891. 1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State v. Love, 598 P.2d 976 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “§ 13-1411 (currently A.R.S. § 13-3891). Ford was indicating his willingness to allow the agents into the house by standing with the door held open.”
State v. Berryman, 875 P.2d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 13-3891; (3) that the search beneath the box springs of the bed was unlawful in the absence of a warrant; and (4) that the search of the trunk of his car was similarly invalid.”
State v. Silva, 670 P.2d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” The Indictment The foreman of the grand jury which indicted the appellant failed to read the words “for sale” which was part of the charge in Count 7 of the indictment both at the beginning and end of the session.”
State v. Silva, 670 P.2d 737 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “" The Indictment The foreman of the grand jury which indicted the appellant failed to read the words "for sale" which was part of the charge in Count 7 of the indictment both at the beginning and end of the session.”
State of Arizona v. Tony Dewayne Smith, No. 2 CA-CR 2003-0254 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 27, 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 13-1411, now A.R.S. § 13-3891. 1977 A riz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.