In Wynn v. State, 117 Md. App. 133, 699 A.2d 512 (1997), rev'd on other grounds, 351 Md. 307, 718 A.2d 588 (1998), the Court reviewed the history of the no-knock requirement and its exceptions in Maryland. Judge Thieme, writing for the Court, noted that as early as 1964 the Court of Appeals had concluded a defendant was entitled to raise the failure to knock and announce in executing a search warrant, and quoted Judge Hammond, in Henson v. State, 236 Md. 518, 204 A.2d 516 (1964), as follows: The claim that the evidence seized was inadmissible because the police officers executing the search warrant did not advise those within that they had such a warrant and demand admittance, but broke in forcibly without notice, is an extension of the old rule that a peace officer seeking to arrest an individual who is in a house, either by authority of an arrest warrant or under circumstances making a warrant unnecessary, must give proper notice of his purpose and authority and be denied admittance before he can use force to break and enter . . . .Wynn, 117 Md. App. at 160 (quoting Henson, 236 Md. at 521-522). The Court's case-by-case analysis explained that Maryland law developed so as to require police to "announce and demand," but the law excuses the failure to do so when circumstances exist, such as officer peril, possible destruction of evidence, or the officer's purpose is evident or known. Wynn, 117 Md. App. at 161. In affirming Wynn's three convictions for daytime housebreaking and three convictions for theft of property, we upheld the lower court's finding that there were sufficient particularized facts known to the police who executed the warrant to believe that their personal safety justified not announcing and demanding entrance. Id. at 168. In other words, the Court held that the exigent circumstances justified a no-knock entry. In Wynn v. State, the search warrant did not include a no-knock provision. However, the officers serving the warrant elected not to knock and announce their presence before entering the houses. Wynn had a long criminal background, including drug convictions, assault, burglary , and handgun convictions. Id. at 168. In addition, Wynn was on parole and had pulled a concealed weapon on police, in the past, to avoid arrest. Id. at 168. Another factor the Court considered in reaching its decision was the presence of another dangerous criminal in the house, namely Wynn's wife, Angela Kenyon. Id. at 168. The Wynn court, affirming the lower court, held that "sufficient particularized evidence existed to support the conclusion that the officers had an objectively reasonable belief that their personal safety was in danger because of appellant's and Kenyon's prior violent and criminal actions." Id. at 167.