Does Section 844 of the California Criminal Code apply if the officer entered into the inner room of a house without the consent of a co-occupant?

Respondent concedes all of this but contends that section 844 does not apply if the officers' entry into the inner room of a house was consented to by a person inside the house. It relies on the rule that a joint occupant, if present, may consent to an entry and search of that portion of the premises jointly possessed even though the person whose property [57 Cal.App.3d 887] is seized and who also has joint control is not present or is not asked for his consent. (People v. Meneley (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 41, 46, 105 Cal.Rptr. 432.)

Respondent's argument fails for two reasons: First, it ignores the policy considerations behind section 844, particularly the prevention of violent confrontation between the occupant of an inner room and strangers who may enter the room without proper notice and identification. Regardless of a co-occupant's consent, the policies underlying section 844 apply as forcefully to an unannounced entry into an inner room as to an unannounced entry into the house itself. (Cf. Duke v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 321, 82 Cal.Rptr. 348, 461 P.2d 628.)