X. Knock and Announce Rule: Exclusionary rule

J. Exceptions to Knock and Announce:

2. Rule: In order to justify a "no-knock" entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence under particular circumstances would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime, by for example, allowing the destruction of the evidence.

Wilson v. Arkansas, US (1995) THOMAS

4th prohittion on unreasonable searches and seizures contains an implicit knock and announce rule previously embedded in the common law. 1. not every entry must be preceded with an announcement. 2. Reasonableness 3. in dictum Thomas suggests that in circumstances of threat of physical violence, announcement would not be required.

K. US v. Banks, SC, 2003:

Police enter after announcing but Banks was in shower and did not hear. 1. Rule: Facts known to police are most important when they make their reasonableness determination (fact that he was in shower is irrelevant) Case specific / property destruction

Richards v. Wisconsin, Supreme Court, 1997, p.200 Justice: STEVENS:

Police officers in WS obtain warrant to search Richard's hotel room for drugs and related paraphernalia. Culmination of substantial evidence of drug activity. Police requested warrant that would give "no-knock" entry. Judge explicitly deleted those portions of warrant. Officers knock and Richards slams door. Officers then ram in door and enter. Richards seeks to have evidence suppressed. 1. Holding: No blanket exception to the knock and announce. The actual circumstances justified officers decision to enter without first announcing their presence and authority. WS court affirmed in ruling but not in exception.

A. Hudson v. Michigan, 2006, SCALIA, p. 509

When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time - perhaps "three to five seconds" ---before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home. Hudson moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence, arguing that the premature entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He was convicted of drug possession. 1. Holding: A violation of the "knock and announce" rule by police does not require the suppression of evidence found during the search.