is reasonable for an officer executing a search warrant at a residence to briefly detain occupants of that residence, to ensure officer safety and an orderly completion of the search.” State v. King, 89 Wn. App. 612, 618-19, 949 P.2d 856 (1998). Thus, neither Gantt nor the Fourth Amendment compels suppression here. We next address Aase’s argument that we must suppress the evidence under article I, section 7 of our state constitution. Whether the Washington constitution provides a level of protection different from the federal constitution is determined by the six nonexclusive Gunwall factors. State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 179, 867 P.2d 593 (1994). Because we examine the same constitutional provision at issue in Gunwall, we adopt the court’s analysis of factors one, tw 1148 (1972) (<HOLDING>). See also City of Tacoma v. Mundell, 6 Wn.
holding that under former rcw 6933430 1959 although preferable if defendant is served personally with a copy of the search warrant it was not reversible error when defendant received the warrant the next day holding that violation of knockandannounce rule during execution of valid search warrant warranted suppression of evidence seized in search following violation holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding suppression not required for technical violation under former statute governing execution of a search warrant for dangerous drugs where warrant was read aloud and served on householder but not served on defendant as required by statute holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required