Therefore, the magistrate could not have relied on such information when making the probable cause determination. [¶ 23] When Utvick’s room was searched on June 1, 2002, the officer observed persons in the room attempting to dispose of drugs by flushing in the bathroom, after executing a search warrant without a no-knock provision. While Ut-vick is not alleged to have engaged in this activity, Utvick was the registered guest of the hotel room and was in the company of persons suspected of disposing of evidence. Prior history of destruction of evidence, when detailed in an affidavit for a no-knock search warrant, is not a threshold requirement but may strengthen probable cause to believe evidence will be destroyed. Cf. Mazepink v. Arkansas, 336 Ark. 171, 987 S.W.2d 648, 655 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Henderson, 629 N.W.2d at 624 (holding
holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding that once the scene was secure exigent circumstances no longer existed and the police were required to obtain a search warrant holding noknock search warrant unreasonable because no exigent circumstances existed and noting moreover there was no evidence  the occupants may have attempted to destroy the evidence  by flushing it down the toilet holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant holding no liability existed under the circumstances