Category Archives: Knock and announce

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

AR: While SW must be issued on affidavit or recorded testimony, questions about no-knock didn’t have to be recorded, especially when no-knock refused

Search warrants must be issued on affidavits or recorded testimony. The issuing judge asked questions about the no-knock entry, and this was separate from probable cause finding. This did not have to be recorded. Besides, the judge denied the no-knock … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on AR: While SW must be issued on affidavit or recorded testimony, questions about no-knock didn’t have to be recorded, especially when no-knock refused

D.Conn.: Violation of knock-and-announce on a 6 am arrest warrant execution leads to suppression despite Hudson

The defendant’s house was entered at 6 am with an arrest warrant, and the officers knocked and entered when there was no prompt answer. The court credits the testimony of the occupants and the time involved and not the officer … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Violation of knock-and-announce on a 6 am arrest warrant execution leads to suppression despite Hudson

OH7 follows Hudson; failure to knock-and-announce doesn’t warrant suppression

A failure to properly knock-and-announce an entry does not warrant suppression, following Hudson v. Michigan. State v. Bembry, 2015-Ohio-5598, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 5397 (7th Dist. December 30, 2015). [Yes, just now on Lexis.] The motion to suppress is denied … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Knock and announce | Comments Off on OH7 follows Hudson; failure to knock-and-announce doesn’t warrant suppression

CA9: A “dilapidated” shack behind a house on the curtilage was still a place subject to the Fourth Amendment

A “dilapidated” shack behind a house on the curtilage was still a place subject to the Fourth Amendment, but the entry without a warrant claim goes forward. They get qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce violation. Deputies entered and shot a … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Curtilage, Knock and announce | Comments Off on CA9: A “dilapidated” shack behind a house on the curtilage was still a place subject to the Fourth Amendment

NE: Failure to announce entry to execute a misd warrant on ptf’s grandson survived summary judgment; interests rule serves are important

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for officers who entered plaintiff’s home to arrest her grandson without announcing and with force. A question of fact is presented on the failure to announce, and it serves important interests. The … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Knock and announce | Comments Off on NE: Failure to announce entry to execute a misd warrant on ptf’s grandson survived summary judgment; interests rule serves are important

PA: Knock-and-announce rule in PA exists by court rule, and it serves important interests; the remedy for violation is suppression of evidence; Hudson not followed

The knock-and-announce rule in Pennsylvania exists by court rule, and it serves important interests. The remedy for violation is suppression of evidence. Pennsylvania does not follow Hudson v. Michigan. Commonwealth v. Frederick, 2015 PA Super 206, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Knock and announce | Comments Off on PA: Knock-and-announce rule in PA exists by court rule, and it serves important interests; the remedy for violation is suppression of evidence; Hudson not followed