{"id":44579,"date":"2020-07-18T14:41:29","date_gmt":"2020-07-18T19:41:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=44579"},"modified":"2020-07-18T15:06:50","modified_gmt":"2020-07-18T20:06:50","slug":"ca8-open-door-doesnt-require-knock-and-announce-at-common-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=44579","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Open door doesn&#8217;t require knock-and-announce at common law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The officer\u2019s entering through an open door didn\u2019t require knock-and-announce  at common law. <a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca8.uscourts.gov\/opndir\/20\/07\/182976P.pdf\">United States v. Sherrod<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22296 (8th Cir. July 17, 2020):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>In evaluating the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has &#8220;looked to the traditional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures afforded by the common law at the time of the framing.&#8221; Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931 (1995). The Court observed that even though the common law &#8220;protected a man&#8217;s house as &#8216;his castle of defense and asylum,'&#8221; id. (quoting 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries * 288), it has been long recognized that &#8220;&#8216;when the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party&#8217;s house, either to arrest him, or to do the execution of the King&#8217;s process, if otherwise he cannot enter,'&#8221; id. (quoting Semayne&#8217;s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195 (K.B. 1603)). But the ability to break open a door is limited by &#8220;an important qualification&#8221; namely that &#8220;&#8216;before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors.'&#8221; Wilson, 514 U.S. at 931 (quoting Semayne&#8217;s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. at 195-96). Thus, the Court had &#8220;no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.&#8221; Id.<\/p><p>Semayne&#8217;s Case also says that &#8220;[i]n all cases when the door is open the sheriff may enter the house, and do execut[e] at the suit of any subject, either of the body, or of the goods.&#8221; 77 Eng. Rep. at 197 (emphasis added). So, at common law the knock-and-announce rule hinged on whether the sheriff or bailiff confronted an open or closed door. See id.; Hodges v. Marks, 79 Eng. Rep. 414, 415 (K.B. 1615) (upholding an arrest after a bailiff entered a home through an open door and seized the arrestee); see also Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 217 n.11 (1981) (observing at the common law &#8220;an open outer door was apparently regarded as the equivalent of a consent of the occupant for the constable to enter the home and conduct a search.&#8221;). The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to knock and announce their presence before entering an open door.<\/p><p>The knock-and-announce rule&#8217;s limited application to closed but not open doors makes sense in light of the rule&#8217;s underlying purposes. The rule protects individuals from harm that may flow from an unannounced forced entry, protects property by allowing individuals to comply with commands, and also protects &#8220;those elements of privacy and dignity that can be destroyed by a sudden entrance.&#8221; Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594 (2006); see also Mendoza, 281 F.3d at 717 (same). A closed door stands between officers and a home&#8217;s occupants in a way that an open door obviously does not. Where a door is open officer and occupant each have increased visibility into and out of a home. This increased visibility not only eliminates a potential forced entry, it may also provide notice of an impending interaction\u2014especially if officers are in uniform. And when a door is open this &#8220;especially private sphere&#8221; is exposed to any passerby. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 14 (2013) (Kagan, J., concurring). Requiring officers to adhere to the knock-and-announce rule when facing an open door would &#8220;force[] [officers] to comply with formalistic rules when the circumstances direct otherwise.&#8221; Mendoza, 281 F.3d at 717.<\/p><p>Even though the knock-and-announce rule does not apply here, Officer Trost&#8217;s conduct does not escape Fourth Amendment scrutiny. &#8220;The Fourth Amendment says nothing specific about formalities in exercising a warrant&#8217;s authorization.&#8221; United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003). Instead its &#8220;touchstone is reasonableness \u2026 measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.&#8221; Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 34 (1996) (citation omitted). Our job is to assess reasonableness case by case. Banks, 540 U.S. at 35-36.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The officer\u2019s entering through an open door didn\u2019t require knock-and-announce at common law. United States v. Sherrod, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22296 (8th Cir. July 17, 2020):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-common-law","category-knock-and-announce"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=44579"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44586,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44579\/revisions\/44586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=44579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=44579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=44579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}