Category Archives: Knock and announce

The Appeal: ‘No Knock’ Warrants Spur Wave of Civil Rights Lawsuits in Little Rock

The Appeal: ‘No Knock’ Warrants Spur Wave of Civil Rights Lawsuits in Little Rock by Joshua Vaughan: “Police are accused of lying to obtain the warrants to conduct military-style raids on the homes of poor people and people of color.”

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on The Appeal: ‘No Knock’ Warrants Spur Wave of Civil Rights Lawsuits in Little Rock

S.D.Ga.: Lack of announcement doesn’t invoke exclusionary rule; def argued he was entitled to announcement to be able to dispose of his drugs

Defendant claims his search was invalid for lack of knock-and-announce because, if they had announced, he could have destroyed the drugs and wouldn’t have been charged [apparently oblivious to the fact that’s one of the justification for dispensing with announcement]. … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Knock and announce | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Lack of announcement doesn’t invoke exclusionary rule; def argued he was entitled to announcement to be able to dispose of his drugs

CA5: SWAT team’s firefight after failure to comply with basic no-knock requirements denies them qualified immunity

SWAT team’s violation of basic elements of no-knock of 1997’s Richards get no qualified immunity in the firefight that followed their unreasonable entry. Fact questions remain for excessive force as well. Geiger v. Sloan, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23849 (5th … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA5: SWAT team’s firefight after failure to comply with basic no-knock requirements denies them qualified immunity

CA8: Failure to knock-and-announce not a suppression issue

“[T]he officers’ alleged violation of the knock-and-announce rule had nothing to do with their seizure of the gun, drugs, and cash in Diaz-Ortiz’s hotel room pursuant to their search warrant.” Relief is barred by Hudson. United States v. Diaz-Ortiz, 2019 … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on CA8: Failure to knock-and-announce not a suppression issue

CA8: Lack of knock-and-announce for parole search gets QI despite fact no case says it’s lawful; no “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority”

Plaintiff absconded parolee was subjected to an unannounced entry into his hotel room about 6 am for a parole search. He was in bed with his girlfriend and a gun. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the entry violated the Fourth … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Knock and announce, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA8: Lack of knock-and-announce for parole search gets QI despite fact no case says it’s lawful; no “robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority”

MT: Knock-and-announce is a part of the reasonableness requirement; prior judicial authorization not required because it depends on exigency at scene

No-knock doesn’t have to be authorized by the issuing magistrate. Cause for a no-knock can be developed at the scene from the officer’s determination of exigency for justification for a no-knock. “Montana law does not also require judges to determine … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on MT: Knock-and-announce is a part of the reasonableness requirement; prior judicial authorization not required because it depends on exigency at scene

CA9: Ptf’s affidavit there was no announcement before battering ram broke in her door makes her civil case survive summary judgment

Plaintiff showed enough of a fact question that officers never announced they were attempting to enter on a search warrant, breaking in her door, to survive their motion for summary judgment. They said, she said. Greiner v. Wall, 2019 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Knock and announce | Comments Off on CA9: Ptf’s affidavit there was no announcement before battering ram broke in her door makes her civil case survive summary judgment

CA9: Whether state officers violated state law in the search doesn’t matter in federal court under the 4A

Defendant argues that the officers violated Washington state law in his search and seizure. That doesn’t matter in federal court. United States v. Dauenhauer, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34797 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2018). Under Hudson, “The federal exclusionary rule, … Continue reading

Posted in Conflict of laws, Knock and announce | Comments Off on CA9: Whether state officers violated state law in the search doesn’t matter in federal court under the 4A

MA: Justification for no-knock shown by risk of destruction of evidence because def’s apartment on 3d floor with locked outside door

A no-knock entry to prevent destruction of evidence was justified by the fact defendant’s apartment was on the third floor and police had to navigate a locked first floor door before they got to his apartment. Commonwealth v. Silva, 2018 … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Knock and announce | Comments Off on MA: Justification for no-knock shown by risk of destruction of evidence because def’s apartment on 3d floor with locked outside door

N.D.Ind.: Court can’t exclude for knock-and-announce failure

Failure to properly knock-and-announce is foreclosed as a reason for exclusion under Hudson v. Michigan. United States v. Calligan, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173193 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 9, 2018). 2255 petitioner was not prejudiced by defense counsel’s failure to challenge … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Knock and announce, Overseizure | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Court can’t exclude for knock-and-announce failure

D.S.C.: Delegating to Drug Enforcement Unit how it executes no-knocks was municipal policy, MSJ denied

The Drug Enforcement Unit’s de facto policy not to properly knock-and-announce as a municipal policy survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic during the no-knock entry. Plaintiff alleged that the DEU essentially failed to knock-and-announce at … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Knock and announce | Comments Off on D.S.C.: Delegating to Drug Enforcement Unit how it executes no-knocks was municipal policy, MSJ denied

D.Conn.: Knock-and-announce was complied with, but def also well knew they were there and what for

First, knock and announce was complied with. The officers testified credibly they announced repeatedly as they approached. Second, even if they didn’t, exigency or futility would be an exception–futile because defendant was well aware of their presence. There was also … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Knock-and-announce was complied with, but def also well knew they were there and what for