did not present an exigent circumstance that justified the officers entering the home without waiting a reasonable period of time. The Court in Wynne distinguished the facts of that case from situations where the police are “unable to observe the activity of the occupants before or after knocking and announcing.” Id. n. 2. We recognize that situations may exist where police officers must dis lance the purpose of the “knock and announce” rule and the needs of law enforcement by requiring that police have probable cause to believe an unannounced entry is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. Woody, 13 Va.App. at 170, 409 S.E.2d at 172; see also Keeter v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 134, 141, 278 S.E.2d 841, 846, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1053, 102 S.Ct. 598, 70 L.Ed.2d 589 (1981) (<HOLDING>). A “no-knoek” entry is not warranted, however,
holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment holding computer database report indicating vehicle was stolen provided officers with probable cause to make warrantless arrest of driver holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo