{"id":4366,"date":"2011-01-11T18:43:50","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T07:41:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-06-29T07:41:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4366","title":{"rendered":"CA4: 20 second wait after knock was constructive denial"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers waited 20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence to enter on an arrest warrant, and 20 seconds was a constructive denial. There was no question as to the validity of the arrest warrant or the knowledge defendant was present. Hudson did not have to be applied. United States v. Young<\/a>, 609 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

3 In Hudson v. Michigan<\/a>, 547 U.S. 586, 594 (2006), the Supreme Court held that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for knock-and-announce violations occurring in the execution of search warrants. The government contends that Michigan<\/a> applies to knock-and-announce violations arising from the execution of arrest warrants, see United States v. Pelletier<\/a>, 469 F.3d 194, 201 (1st Cir. 2006) (concluding that Hudson applies in the context of an arrest warrant), while Young argues that there are different considerations present in arrest-warrant cases that counsel against an extension of Hudson. Given our conclusion that the agents complied with the knock-and-announce requirements, we need not consider whether Hudson applies in cases involving the execution of arrest warrants.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Traffic stop was completed when the officer said goodbye to the defendant, but then engaged him in further conversation which was consensual. \u201cIndeed, Sullivan could have declined to answer Trooper Johnson’s questions. He need not even have been informed explicitly that he was free to go, Ohio v. Robinette<\/a>, 519 U.S. 33, 35 (1996) (holding that a lawfully seized individual need not be informed that he or she is free to go for a consent to search to be recognized as voluntary).\u201d United States v. Walker, 719 F. Supp. 2d 586 (W.D. Pa. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}