PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT AUTHORIZING AN UNANNOUNCED ENTRY AND A NIGHTTIME SEARCH, POLICE ENTERED ROBERT LIEN'S APARTMENT WITHOUT WARNING AND CONDUCTED A SUCCESSFUL SEARCH FOR MARIJUANA AND DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING THE SEARCH WAS SUPPRESSED BY PRETRIAL ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE POLICE AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED TO THE ISSUING MAGISTRATE DID NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT FACTS TO JUSTIFY INCLUSION OF UNANNOUNCED ENTRY OR NIGHTTIME SEARCH CLAUSES IN THE WARRANT. ON APPEAL, THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT AGREED THAT THE FACTUAL SHOWING IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT, BUT FOUND THE TRIAL COURT'S EXCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE IN ERROR, HOLDING THAT FACTS ASCERTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH JUSTIFIED AN UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. ALTHOUGH THE NIGHTTIME ENTRY WAS A STATUTORY VIOLATION, IT WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSION. IN MINNESOTA, POLICE ARE GENERALLY REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PRIOR JUDICIAL APPROVAL FOR SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND POLICE MUST ANNOUNCE THEIR AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE PRIOR TO ENTRY. ALTHOUGH THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THE THREE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED 'EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE' EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE PROSCRIBING UNANNOUNCED ENTRIES, THE COURT INDICATED THAT THE CONCEPT OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES HAS SOMEWHAT FLUID BOUNDARIES. AN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF THE LIEN COURT'S REASONING IS THAT DRUG SELLERS AND USERS POSE SPECIAL DANGERS TO OFFICERS ENGAGED IN SEARCHES. THE COURT OFFERED NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH AN ASSUMPTION; NOR DID IT EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY THAT BUYERS AND SELLERS OF MARIJUANA ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE DANGEROUS THAN THOSE TRAFFICKING IN OTHER DRUGS. THE COURT'S SUMMARY TREATMENT OF THE NIGHT SEARCH ISSUE SIMILARLY DOES NOT REFLECT THE DEFERENCE SUPPOSEDLY ACCORDED CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IN FUTURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CASES, THE COURT REMOVE THIS AMBIGUITY BY DECIDING CASES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES IT HAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT OTHER CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)