Knock-and-announce

Last updated
Deputy U.S. Marshals during a knock-and-announce procedure U.S. Marshals knock and announce.jpg
Deputy U.S. Marshals during a knock-and-announce procedure

Knock-and-announce, in United States law criminal procedure, is an ancient common law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment, [1] which requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a search.

Contents

The rule is currently codified in the United States Code, [2] which governs Fourth Amendment searches conducted by the federal government. Most states have similarly codified the rule into their own statutes, [3] and remain free to interpret or augment the rule and its consequences in any fashion that remains consistent with Fourth Amendment principles. [4] A state's knock-and-announce rule will govern searches by state actors pursuant to state-issued warrants, assuming that Federal actors are not extensively involved in the search.

The rule

English common law has required law enforcement to knock-and-announce since at least Semayne's case (1604). [5] In Miller v. United States (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that police must give notice before making a forced entry, and in Ker v. California (1963) a divided Court found that this limitation had been extended against the states by the United States Constitution. [6]

However, in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a knock-and-announce before entry was a factor that must be considered in reviewing the overall constitutionality of a Fourth Amendment search. [7] After several state attempts[ citation needed ] to exclude specific categories (e.g. drug crimes) from the knock-and-announce rule, the Supreme Court in Richards v. Wisconsin prohibited the policy, and demanded a return to a case-by-case review scenario. [8] The Richards Court suggested that the knock and announce rule could be dispensed with only in certain circumstances, for example where police have reasonable suspicion that an exigent circumstance exists. The Court read its earlier Wilson opinion to suggest that such circumstances might include those:

The Court expressly stated that whether reasonable suspicion exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter. [9]

In a similar manner, where officers reasonably believe that exigent circumstances, such as the destruction of evidence or danger to officers will exist, a no-knock warrant may be issued. [10] [11] However, despite police awareness that such future exigencies will exist, they are generally not required to seek such a warrant; [12] in this case, police must have an objectively reasonable belief, at the time of executing the warrant, that such circumstances do in fact exist. [13]

The Supreme Court has given some guidance as to how long officers must wait after knocking and announcing their presence before entry may be made. In U.S. v. Banks, [14] the Supreme Court found 15 to 20 seconds to be a reasonable time where officers received no response after knocking and where officers feared the home occupant may be destroying the drug evidence targeted by the search warrant. As with most other things in the Fourth Amendment arena, the Court left reasonableness of the time period to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances; [15] and thus inferior Federal courts have found even shorter time periods to be reasonable. [16] Some different factors have been propounded by lower courts to guide the analysis of a reasonable wait period. [17] A few examples are:

Federal courts also recognize that consent may vitiate part or all of the rule. For example, where officers knock, but before announcement are invited in, they no longer need to announce. [18]

Effects of the rule

In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), the divided Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require the suppression of evidence using the exclusionary rule. That is primarily because the goals served by a knock-and-announce policy tend to be lesser than other requirements, such as the warrant requirement, of a valid Fourth Amendment search, but the latter is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's body, papers, and effects (among other things), the knock-and-announce rule is designed only to provide a brief moment of privacy for an individual to compose themself before a valid search occurs, to prevent an individual from mistakenly believing that police are common intruders and thus endangering them and to prevent property damage from a forcible entry. [19] Because police with probable cause and a valid warrant are already entitled to an entry and search, violation of the simple knock-and-announce rule has not been deemed grave enough in the federal courts or in most states to justify suppression of the evidence.

Most states have composed their own statutes, which require a knock and announcement before making a warranted entry. Because the states are free to offer more liberty to criminal defendants than the Federal Constitution, the states remain free to impose the exclusionary rule for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. The Supreme Court opinion in Hudson is necessarily binding only on searches conducted by the federal government. [ citation needed ]

In July 2020, the podcast Criminal released an episode called "Knock and Announce" about the 2015 police raid on Julian Betton's apartment in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. [20] [ non-primary source needed ]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

In the United States, the plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement that allows an officer to seize evidence and contraband that are found in plain view during a lawful observation. The doctrine is also regularly used by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers while screening persons and property at U.S. airports.

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of "anticipatory" search warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that such warrants, which are issued in advance of a "triggering condition" that makes them executable, are constitutional and do not need to describe that condition on their face.

Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court ruled that police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is or is about to be seriously injured.

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984), was a 1983 case before the US Supreme Court determining that a warrantless home arrest without exigent circumstances violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment. The high court thus ruled that the old "knock and announce" rule while not a hard requirement, was also not a dead letter.

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case from 1978 in which The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police who had suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the university's hospital in April 1971. The Stanford Daily filed a suit claiming that under the protection of the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, the warrants were unconstitutional and that the searches should have fallen under the context of subpoenas. The Supreme Court ruled against The Stanford Daily; however, Congress later passed the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which provides additional protections against searches and seizures to the press and individuals who disseminate information to the public, unless the individual is suspected of a crime or a life-threatening situation is present.

The law of search and seizure in Pennsylvania is controlled by both the United States Constitution and the broader protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This article is concerned only with the protections provided by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court ruled that police must generally obtain a warrant before subjecting a drunken-driving suspect to a blood test, and that the natural metabolism of blood alcohol does not establish a per se exigency that would justify a blood draw without consent.

United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that decided that a warrantless arrest in public and consenting to a vehicle search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the applicability of Fourth Amendment protections to searches and seizures that occur on buses, as well as the function of consent during searches by law enforcement. During a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, police officers boarded a Greyhound bus as part of a drug interdiction effort and interviewed passengers. After talking to two of the passengers and asking if they could "check [their] person", officers discovered the two passengers had taped several packages of cocaine to their legs. At trial, the passengers argued that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because the police engaged in coercive behavior and never informed them that their participation in the drug interdiction efforts was voluntary.

<i>Taylor v. City of Saginaw</i>

In Taylor v. City of Saginaw, et al., No. 17-2126, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the practice of “chalking” in which parking enforcement officers apply chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles in order to track the duration of time for which those vehicles have been parked, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court also held that two exceptions to the search warrant requirement—the community caretaker exception and the motor vehicle exception offered by the government—do not apply to the practice of chalking tires. Taylor v. City of Saginaw is the first case in which chalking was alleged to violate the Fourth Amendment. 

Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution's "community caretaking" exception.

Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances requirement related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.

References

  1. ↑ Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995); Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997)
  2. ↑ 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
  3. ↑ See, e.g., Washington Code Annotated 10.31.040.
  4. ↑ U.S. v. Scroggins, 361 F.3rd 1075 (8th Cir. 2004)
  5. ↑ G. Robert Blakey (1964). "The Rule of Announcement and Unlawful Entry: Miller v. United States and Ker v. California". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 112: 499. doi:10.2307/3310634. JSTOR   3310634 . Retrieved 23 March 2017.
  6. ↑ Kevin Sack (19 March 2017). "Door-Busting Raids Leave Trail of Blood - The Heavy Toll of Using SWAT Teams for Search Warrants". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
  7. ↑ 514 U.S. 927 (1995)
  8. ↑ 520 U.S. 385 (1997)
  9. ↑ U.S. v. Ramireèz, 523 U.S. 65 (1998).
  10. ↑ Memorandum Opinion for the Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration, from Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Authority of Federal Judges and Magistrates to Issue "No-Knock" Warrants, 26 Op. O.L.C. 44 (June 12, 2002).
  11. ↑ See, e.g., U.S. v. Segura-Baltazar 448 F.3rd 1281, (11th Cir. 2006)
  12. ↑ See, e.g., U.S. v. Musa, 401 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005)
  13. ↑ U.S. v. Maden, 64 F.3rd 1505 (10th Cir. 1995)
  14. ↑ 540 U.S. 31 (2003)
  15. ↑ U.S. v. Jenkins, 175 F.3d 1208, 1213 (10th Cir. 1999) (stating the Supreme Court has not established a clear cut standard to determine the amount of time officers must wait).
  16. ↑ See, e.g., U.S. v. Cline, 349 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2003)
  17. ↑ U.S. v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3rd 973 (9th Cir. 2002)
  18. ↑ U.S. v. Hatfield, 365 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2004)
  19. ↑ U.S. v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2002)
  20. ↑ "Knock and Announce". Criminal . July 3, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.