The officer\u2019s touching a house outside keypad to illuminate it didn\u2019t require an announcement before that. They had the code and were coming in, and they did announce. United States v. Broady, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262077 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2025). No case anywhere supports this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Fundamentally, the knock and announce rule is part of the reasonableness inquiry that makes up Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 930 (1995). It is not absolute or inflexible. How it is to be applied depends on the totality of the circumstances. It gives way, for instance, when it would be \u2018dangerous or futile\u2019 or would \u2018allow[] the destruction of evidence.\u2019 United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 36 (2003). Again, in this instance, having reviewed videos of the incident from two separate body worn cameras, the Court can say with confidence that the SWAT team’s entry into Defendant’s abode did not violate the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officer\u2019s touching a house outside keypad to illuminate it didn\u2019t require an announcement before that. They had the code and were coming in, and they did announce. United States v. Broady, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262077 (W.D. Wash. Dec. … Continue reading