NCJ Number
204595
Journal
Police: The Law Enforcement Magazine Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Dated: February 2004 Pages: 74-75
Date Published
February 2004
Length
2 pages
Annotation
This article examines knock and announce requirements when police officers are attempting to serve an arrest or search warrant.
Abstract
Most States, along with the Federal Government, have some type of knock-and-announce law that requires officers serving a warrant to knock on a suspect’s door, announce their intentions and authority, demand entry, and wait a reasonable amount of time before taking forcing entry. This article examines the statutes and cases governing the knock-and-announce rule, and specifically addresses questions concerning whether knocking is absolutely required in every case, issues of property damage, and how long an officer is supposed to wait for entry after knocking before forcing entry. In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas that the knock-and-announce requirement is constitutionally compelled by the fourth amendment. However, in the Supreme Court case of Richards v. Wisconsin, the Court rules that there may be circumstances in which a reduced standard of “reasonable suspicion” may justify an unannounced entry to serve a warrant. However, the Supreme Court in this case was unwilling to create specific categories of crime in which the knock-and-announce requirement would not apply. Each case, instead, must be evaluated on its own to determine whether the risk is high enough to override the knock-and-announce rule. If a no-knock warrant is sought, the affidavit should set forth the reasonable suspicion of danger, futility, or destruction of evidence in order to allow a magistrate to issue a no-knock warrant. Officers are cautioned to only use the amount of force necessary to get into the structure and to be careful of destroying the suspect’s personal property. Finally, the article grapples with the question of how long officers should wait after knocking and announcing their intentions. This again is based on a case by case basis as set forth in United States v. Banks. The Supreme Court ruled that where police officers reasonably suspect an exigency, such as the imminent destruction of evidence, the length of the delay before forcing entry should be based on the nature of the exigency. The author urges police offices to either audio or video tape warrant announcements and searches, noting the amount of time waited before forcing entry and the state of the property both before and after a search.