{"id":8678,"date":"2013-06-19T09:56:05","date_gmt":"2013-04-27T08:58:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-04-27T08:58:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8678","title":{"rendered":"NJ: Use of flash-bang in no-knock not objectively unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers had a no-knock warrant based on defendant\u2019s firearms in the house. The use of a flash-bang device indoors was not objectively unreasonable on these facts. State v. Rockford<\/a>, 213 N.J. 424, 64 A.3d 514 (2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Manalapan officers’ decision to use a flash-bang device as they executed the knock-and-announce warrant raises the primary issue addressed in this appeal. The United States Supreme Court has yet to consider the constitutionality of police deployment of a flash-bang device in the execution of either a knock-and-announce search warrant or a warrant authorizing a no-knock entry. Federal case law regarding this issue imposes no blanket prohibition on the use of flash-bang devices in the execution of knock-and-announce warrants. Several federal appellate courts have upheld the denial of suppression motions on a case-by-case basis. …<\/p>\n

We can distill several principles from these cases that have relevance here. First, several federal appellate courts have identified careful police planning prior to executing a warrant using a flash-bang device as a factor supporting a finding that law enforcement conduct is objectively reasonable. See Boulanger, supra, 444 F.3d at 80, 85 (noting use of flash-bang device indoors was reasonable when “police planned the search after determining that there were no children or elderly people in the apartment”); Molina, supra, 325 F.3d at 966 (noting police finding, prior to the search, that the execution of the warrant satisfied internal criteria for “high risk search[]” warrants); Folks, supra, 236 F.3d at 388 & n.2 (affirming denial of motion to suppress based upon the inevitable discovery doctrine, and noting that police were “sufficiently careful” in checking residence before deploying device and carrying fire extinguisher to “quickly extinguish any fires resulting from [its] deployment”).<\/p>\n

Second, the presence of weapons in a residence has been held to weigh in favor of a finding that the use of a flash-bang device was constitutionally permissible. …
\n…<\/p>\n

We decline to adopt the Appellate Division majority’s bright-line rule against the use of a flash-bang device to execute a knock-and-announce warrant. We hold that the objective reasonableness of law enforcement’s execution of a warrant that includes the use of this tactic should be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances. Courts should weigh such factors as the scope of any threat of violence presented by the occupant, the physical features of the residence, the presence of others on the premises, the potential loss of evidence if the device is not used and the risk of personal injury and property damage that the deployment would pose. In some circumstances, the use of a flash-bang device may threaten the safety of occupants and undermine the purpose of the knock-and-announce warrant, and a court might properly find that the device cannot reasonably be deployed in a given setting. In other settings, the risk to officer safety or the threat that evidence could be lost may justify the use of the device.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-8678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8678","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=8678"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8678\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}