With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the door. They heard somebody say come in. * * * [T]here should be some type of obligation on the police officers to at least announce who they are before entering the premises [.]” The state appeals, arguing that defendant consented to the officers’ entry into his apartment and that the “knock and announce” rule does not apply. Defendant responds that the trial court was correct in concluding that the officers should have announced their identity before entering and that he did not consent to the officers’ entry because Jackson, not defendant, told the officers to “come in.” The “knock and announce” rule is required in Oregon by ORS 133.575(2), and by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 US 927, 930, 115 S Ct 1914, 131 L Ed 2d 976 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Under the rule, officers must first knock and

A: recognizing rule
B: holding that commonlaw knock and announce rule is part of the fourth amendment reasonableness inquiry
C: holding that padilla does not announce a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure and listing in footnotes three eases finding that padilla announced a new rule of criminal procedure and seven cases finding that padilla is simply the application of an old rule
D: holding res judicata and statutes of limitations necessarily circumscribe the retroactive application of the rule we announce today
B.