697 (1955) (in reference to presumed knowledge of longstanding case law). Whether Officer Rothwell, Officer Simon, or the Little Rock District Court actually knew about Ark. Code Ann. § 27-22-104 and the court of appeals’ interpretation thereof, they were presumed to know, and because of this, the officers conduct in contravention of this statute was not “objectively reasonable,” as the State contends. It is the duty of those who enforce the law to follow it, and ignorance thereof can no more excuse the conduct of officers and judges than it would excuse the conduct of a defendant. If anything, a higher duty of compliance rests on those whose responsibility it is to enforce the law than on the general populous. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 264 Ark. 391, 395, 572 S.W.2d 389, 391 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Behrel v. State, 151 Md. App. 64, 823 A.2d
holding that the rules of criminal procedure should be common knowledge to lawenforcement and judicial officers who have the duty and responsibility to authorize searches recognizing that to avoid absurd results the court has a duty to interpret the rules of criminal procedure with logic and common sense recognizing common knowledge exception recognizing the inherent common law authority of courts to promulgate rules of practice and procedure recognizing a common knowledge exception