United States v. Ramirez

Last updated
United States v. Ramirez
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 13, 1998
Decided March 4, 1998
Full case nameUnited States, Petitioner v. Hernan Ramirez
Citations523 U.S. 65 ( more )
91 F. 3d 1297
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Holding
Destruction of property does not affect the reasonableness of a no-knock warrant as long as there is reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous and/or futile.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Amendment IV

United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that property damage during a no-knock warrant is irrelevant as long as law enforcement has reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be a dangerous move.

Contents

Background

Alan Shelby, a convicted felon serving concurrent federal and state sentences in Oregon, escaped from a Tillamook County Sheriff's vehicle by slipping out of his handcuffs and knocking over a deputy on November 1, 1994. Three years before, he attempted escape by assaulting an officer, kicking open a jail door, carjacking a woman, and ramming into a police vehicle. Additionally, he made death threats to witnesses and police officers, along with threatening torture with hammers. Law enforcement believed he had access to large caches of weapons as well.

After authorities distributed press releases, a confidential informant told the ATF on November 3 that he had seen a man resembling Shelby at Hernan Ramirez's home in Boring, Oregon. The ATF then drove to an area near Ramirez's home where they spotted a man outside that looked like Shelby. The informant further stated that drugs and guns were hidden in the house's garage.

On the early morning of November 5, 45 federal and state officers assembled to execute a no-knock warrant on the home. The police used a loudspeaker to announce the search warrant and broke a garage window simultaneously. Guns were also pointed at the window to dissuade individuals from potentially arming themselves.

Awakened by the noise and believing that people were going to rob his family, Ramirez grabbed a pistol and fired it at the garage's ceiling. He quickly threw his gun away and threw himself on the living room floor to surrender after officers fired back and identified themselves. Although Shelby was ultimately not found, Ramirez confessed after waiving his Miranda rights that he was a convicted felon and that he owned two firearms.

Lower courts

During trial, the lower court suppressed the firearms as the judge ruled that the exigent circumstances were insufficient to warrant the destruction of property. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the suppression by elaborating that property destruction requires specific instances of exigency that were not met. [1]

Supreme Court decision

In a unanimous verdict delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that there is no heightened standard for no-knock warrants if property destruction happened as long as there is reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would either result in a life-threatening confrontation or the destruction of evidence. The Court cited Richards v. Wisconsin as precedent that while there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule, a no-knock warrant is justifiable if there is a high chance of physical threats or tampering of valuable evidence.

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.

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives</span> U.S. law enforcement agency

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), commonly referred to as the ATF, is a domestic law enforcement agency within the United States Department of Justice. Its responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives; acts of arson and bombings; and illegal trafficking and tax evasion of alcohol and tobacco products. The ATF also regulates via licensing the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce. Many of the ATF's activities are carried out in conjunction with task forces made up of state and local law enforcement officers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods. The ATF operates a unique fire research laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, where full-scale mock-ups of criminal arson can be reconstructed. The ATF had 5,285 employees and an annual budget of almost $1.5 billion in 2021. The ATF has received criticism over its handling of the Ruby Ridge siege, the Waco siege and other incidents.

<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.

<i>United States v. Stewart</i> (2003) United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case

United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 and 451 F.3d 1071, is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the defendant, ruling that possession of homemade machine guns can be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knock-and-announce</span> United States law criminal procedure

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open carry in the United States</span> Practice of carrying a visible firearm in some US states

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of visibly carrying a firearm in public places, as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. Carrying a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

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.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.

In the United States, a no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property. It is issued under the belief that any evidence they hope to find may be destroyed between the time that police identify themselves and the time they secure the area, or in the event where there is a large perceived threat to officer safety during the execution of the warrant.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

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.

The Ken Ballew raid was a federal raid on June 7, 1971, on the home of Kenyon F. "Ken" Ballew which became a cause célèbre in the debates between advocates of gun control and advocates of gun ownership rights in the United States.

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.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

Ybarra v. Illinois was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that a warrant can not be used to search an unnamed individual unless the warrant mentions that unnamed parties are involved or exigent circumstances are shown to exist.

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.

United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985), is a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled that wanted posters create reasonable suspicion to detain and identify suspects that match descriptions contained in those posters.

References

  1. United States v. Ramirez: A question of damage Susan Hatcher. American Journal of Criminal Law; Austin Vol. 25, Iss. 2, (Spring 1998): 473-475.