Page:Brief for the United States, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).djvu/35

 (R. 35). The other officers were available if an arrest should become necessary or if a search were voluntarily permitted by Toy, but only one officer went to the door.

The hour was early, 6:30 a.m., but it was daylight, not darkness. The fact that it was no longer dark at this time of year is of more significance than the exact hour. For example, while a search warrant must be served in "the daytime" if the affidavits are not positive as to the location of the property (Rule 41(c), F.R. Crim. P.), the test is not the time of rising or setting of the sun but whether there is light; dawn or twilight suffices. Moore v. United States, 57 F. 2d 840, 843 (C.A. 5); United States v. Liebrick, 55 F. 2d 341, 343 (M.D. Pa.); Albright v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 22 F. 2d 832 (E.D. N.Y.). Nor is 6:30 a.m. so unreasonably early as to be compared to pulling a man out in the small hours after midnight. This was a laundry which was due to open at 8, or possibly 8:30, o'clock (see R. 51, cf. R. 38), and a community in which many businesses open at 8 o'clock. In judging the reasonableness of the officer's action it is also necessary to bear in mind that, in dealing with as easily concealable and as valuable a contraband as heroin, delay in the investigation could have serious consequences. Word of Hom Way's arrest or even of his disappearance from his ordinary haunts could travel quickly and lead to the hiding or destruction of the narcotics.

The officer knocked, and when Toy opened the door he began by asking for laundry. Had the officer contemplated immediate arrest, he would have indulged