Can a police officer who fails to comply with section 844 of the California Penal Code with respect to search and seizure provisions, such that a suspect has a right to destroy or dispose of evidence?

As we explained in People v. Maddox [1956] 46 Cal.2d 301, 305--307, 294 P.2d 6, 9, however, Penal Code section 844 is simply a codification of the common law and does not require literal compliance with its terms where 'the officer's peril would have been increased or the arrest frustrated.' We recognized that 'The officer's compliance with (this section) will delay his entry, and cases might arise in which the delay would permit destruction or secretion of evidence * * *.' Since 'Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with section 844,' we concluded 'that when there is reasonable cause to make an arrest and search and the facts known to him before his entry are not inconsistent with a good faith belief on the part of the officer that compliance with section 844 is excused, his failure to comply with the formal requirements of that section does not justify the exclusion of the evidence he obtains.' (See also Ker v. State of California (1963) 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726.)