Category Archives: Knock and announce

E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

The officer in this case did not have to knock-and-announce to make a protective sweep after defendant was arrested. The officer testified that he did. Entering with gun drawn doesn’t make it a “forceful entry.” United States v. Israel, 2018 … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

CA6: No knock entry at 4 am stated claim for unreasonable execution of SW

Plaintiffs adequately allege a claim for unreasonable execution of a search warrant. The officers executed a search warrant at 4 am without knocking or announcing, and shot the lock off the door. Greer v. City of Highland Park, 2018 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Reasonableness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: No knock entry at 4 am stated claim for unreasonable execution of SW

TN: Where BAC forensic testing budget depends on convictions, due process violated

A state fee for forensic testing of BAC in the TBI that depends on convictions is essentially a contingent fee for conviction. The TBI forensic team are not adjudicators in the Tumey–Ward due process analysis, but it is clear that … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Knock and announce | Comments Off on TN: Where BAC forensic testing budget depends on convictions, due process violated

Today is [or maybe] the 414th anniversay of Semayne’s Case and judicial recognition of knock-and-announce and the castle doctrine

Today (as best as can be determined) is the 414th anniversary of Semayne’s Case recognizing both knock-and-announce and the castle doctrine at common law. Back then, the dates of decisions weren’t as important and they appeared in reporters well after … Continue reading

Posted in Common law, Knock and announce, SCOTUS | Comments Off on Today is [or maybe] the 414th anniversay of Semayne’s Case and judicial recognition of knock-and-announce and the castle doctrine

W.D.Mo.: Knock-and-announce didn’t apply to an open door; plain view reasonable, but wife’s consent was vitiated by threat of jail if she didn’t sign form

Officers came to defendant’s house both on a call about the welfare of children living there and with a pre-existing warrant for defendant’s arrest. They encountered one of the children outside taking trash to the street and determined that defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Knock and announce, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Knock-and-announce didn’t apply to an open door; plain view reasonable, but wife’s consent was vitiated by threat of jail if she didn’t sign form

OH4: Knock-and-announce is not a 4A exclusion issue, and no justification shown for state const. to have different result

Failure to knock-and-announce was not a Fourth Amendment violation, and defendant gave no justification for extending the state constitution. State v. Robinson, 2017-Ohio-8274, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 4658 (4th Dist. Sept. 27, 2017). Defendant waived his knock-and-announce claim by not … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, State constitution | Comments Off on OH4: Knock-and-announce is not a 4A exclusion issue, and no justification shown for state const. to have different result

OH follows Hudson on knock-and-announce under state constitution

The Ohio Supreme Court follows Hudson under the state constitution and holds that a violation of knock-and-announce does not justify suppression of the search. The state constitution has been applied more broadly than the Fourth Amendment on occasion, but not … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, State constitution | Comments Off on OH follows Hudson on knock-and-announce under state constitution

Hudson gutted the knock-and-announce rule by making it purely optional 11 years ago today

Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), decided 11 years ago today, unraveling the knock-and-announce rule of Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) and Richards v. Wisconsin (1997). It’s constitutionally required, it saves lives, it’s far more civil in a civil society, … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce | Comments Off on Hudson gutted the knock-and-announce rule by making it purely optional 11 years ago today

IN: Failure to knock-and-announce is really just a reasonableness argument

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising a challenge to the officer’s failure to knock-and-announce before entering defendant’s home on a search warrant for drugs. She had priors, there were controlled buys, and guns often go with drugs. The knock-and-announce … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IN: Failure to knock-and-announce is really just a reasonableness argument

Worcester Telegram (MA): Broken door, broken promise: Police renege on pledge for judicial permission for no-knock raids

Worcester Telegram (MA): Broken door, broken promise: Police renege on pledge for judicial permission for no-knock raids by Brad Petrishen: State police declined to say why they reversed course on the external control, and also declined to discuss an apparently … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on Worcester Telegram (MA): Broken door, broken promise: Police renege on pledge for judicial permission for no-knock raids

AR: Knock-and-announce applies to parole searches, but Hudson adopted and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply

The knock-and-announce rule applies to parole searches, and violation of the rule is a substantial violation of the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. The court adopts Hudson, however, and finds that the exclusionary rule should not be applied. Lane … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on AR: Knock-and-announce applies to parole searches, but Hudson adopted and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply

Cal.4th: Failure to knock-and-announce and wait long enough was not subject to exclusionary rule

The officers’ failure to knock-and-announce (really wait long enough) before entry does not invoke the exclusionary rule under Michigan v. Hudson. People v. Byers, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1087 (4th Dist. Dec. 14, 2016):

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on Cal.4th: Failure to knock-and-announce and wait long enough was not subject to exclusionary rule