Knock-and-announce
Encyclopedia
Knock-and-announce, in United States
law
of criminal procedure
, is an ancient common-law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment
, which often requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a valid Fourth-Amendment search.
The rule is currently codified in the United States Code
, which governs Fourth-Amendment searches conducted by the federal government. Most states have similarly codified the rule into their own statutes, and remain free to interpret or augment the rule and its consequences in any fashion that remains consistent with Fourth-Amendment principles. A state's knock-and-announce rule will govern searches by state actors pursuant to a state-issued warrant, assuming that Federal actors are not extensively involved in the search.
that an exigent circumstance
exists. The Court read its earlier Wilson opinion to suggest that such circumstances might include:
In a similar manner, where officers reasonably believe that exigent circumstances, such as the destruction of evidence or danger to officers will exist, a "no-knock"
warrant may be issued. However, despite police awareness that such future exigencies will exist, they are generally not required to seek a "no-knock" warrant; in this case, police must have an objectively reasonable belief, at the time of executing the warrant, that such circumstances do in fact exist.
The Supreme Court has given some guidance as to how long officers must wait after knocking and announcing their presence before entry may be made. In U.S. v. Banks, the Supreme Court found 15 to 20 seconds to be a reasonable wait time where officers received no response after knocking and where officers feared the home occupant may be destroying the drug evidence targeted by the search warrant. As with most other things in the Fourth Amendment arena, the Court left reasonableness of the time period to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances; and thus inferior Federal courts have found even shorter time periods to be reasonable. Some different factors have been propounded by lower courts to guide the analysis of a reasonable wait period. A few examples are:
Federal courts also recognize that consent may vitiate part or all of the rule. For example, where officers knock, but before announcement are invited in, they no longer need to announce.
(2006), the Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require the suppression of evidence using the exclusionary rule
. This is primarily because the goals served by a knock-and-announce policy tend to be lesser than other requirements (such as the warrant requirement) of a valid Fourth-Amendment search: whereas the latter is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's body, papers, and effects (among other things), the knock-and-announce rule is designed only to provide a brief moment of privacy for an individual to compose himself before a valid search occurs, to prevent an individual from mistakenly believing that police are common intruders and thus endangering them, and to prevent property damage from a forcible entry. Because police with probable cause and a valid warrant are already entitled to an entry and search, violation of the simple knock-and-announce rule has not been deemed grave enough in the Federal arena or in most states to justify suppression of the evidence.
Most states have composed their own statutes which require a knock and announcement before making a warranted entry. Because the states are free to offer more liberty to criminal defendants than the Federal constitution demands, the states remain free to impose the exclusionary rule for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule if they so wish. The Supreme Court opinion in Hudson is necessarily binding only on those searches conducted by the Federal government.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
law
Law
Law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus...
of criminal procedure
Criminal procedure
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated criminal law.-Basic rights:Currently, in many countries with a democratic system and the rule of law, criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the...
, is an ancient common-law principle, incorporated into the Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
, which often requires law enforcement officers to announce their presence and provide residents with an opportunity to open the door prior to a valid Fourth-Amendment search.
The rule is currently codified in the United States Code
United States Code
The Code of Laws of the United States of America is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal laws of the United States...
, which governs Fourth-Amendment searches conducted by the federal government. Most states have similarly codified the rule into their own statutes, and remain free to interpret or augment the rule and its consequences in any fashion that remains consistent with Fourth-Amendment principles. A state's knock-and-announce rule will govern searches by state actors pursuant to a state-issued warrant, assuming that Federal actors are not extensively involved in the search.
The rule
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas that a knock-and-announce before entry was a factor that must be considered in reviewing the overall constitutionality of a Fourth-Amendment search. After several state attempts to exclude specific categories (e.g. drug crimes) from the knock-and-announce rule based on blanket "factoring", the Supreme Court in Richards v. Wisconsin prohibited the policy, and demanded a return to a case-by-case review scenario. The Richards Court suggested that the knock and announce rule could be dispensed with only in certain circumstances, for example where police have reasonable suspicionReasonable suspicion
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";...
that an exigent circumstance
Exigent circumstance
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances...
exists. The Court read its earlier Wilson opinion to suggest that such circumstances might include:
- Circumstances that present a threat of physical violence
- There is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given"
- Knocking and announcing would be dangerous or "futile"
- However, the Court expressly stated that whether or not reasonable suspicion exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter.
In a similar manner, where officers reasonably believe that exigent circumstances, such as the destruction of evidence or danger to officers will exist, a "no-knock"
No knock warrant
In the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully...
warrant may be issued. However, despite police awareness that such future exigencies will exist, they are generally not required to seek a "no-knock" warrant; in this case, police must have an objectively reasonable belief, at the time of executing the warrant, that such circumstances do in fact exist.
The Supreme Court has given some guidance as to how long officers must wait after knocking and announcing their presence before entry may be made. In U.S. v. Banks, the Supreme Court found 15 to 20 seconds to be a reasonable wait time where officers received no response after knocking and where officers feared the home occupant may be destroying the drug evidence targeted by the search warrant. As with most other things in the Fourth Amendment arena, the Court left reasonableness of the time period to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances; and thus inferior Federal courts have found even shorter time periods to be reasonable. Some different factors have been propounded by lower courts to guide the analysis of a reasonable wait period. A few examples are:
- the size, design, and layout of the premises
- the time of day the search is being executed
- the nature of the suspected offense (in particular, does it involve evidence easily destroyed? Is the suspect dangerous?)
- the evidence demonstrating guilt.
Federal courts also recognize that consent may vitiate part or all of the rule. For example, where officers knock, but before announcement are invited in, they no longer need to announce.
Effects of the Rule
In Hudson v. MichiganHudson v. Michigan
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586 , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence does not require...
(2006), the Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require the suppression of evidence using the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law...
. This is primarily because the goals served by a knock-and-announce policy tend to be lesser than other requirements (such as the warrant requirement) of a valid Fourth-Amendment search: whereas the latter is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's body, papers, and effects (among other things), the knock-and-announce rule is designed only to provide a brief moment of privacy for an individual to compose himself before a valid search occurs, to prevent an individual from mistakenly believing that police are common intruders and thus endangering them, and to prevent property damage from a forcible entry. Because police with probable cause and a valid warrant are already entitled to an entry and search, violation of the simple knock-and-announce rule has not been deemed grave enough in the Federal arena or in most states to justify suppression of the evidence.
Most states have composed their own statutes which require a knock and announcement before making a warranted entry. Because the states are free to offer more liberty to criminal defendants than the Federal constitution demands, the states remain free to impose the exclusionary rule for a violation of the knock-and-announce rule if they so wish. The Supreme Court opinion in Hudson is necessarily binding only on those searches conducted by the Federal government.
See also
- No knock warrantNo knock warrantIn the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell. In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully...
- Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause...
to the United States ConstitutionUnited States ConstitutionThe Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three... - Semayne's caseSemayne's caseSemayne's Case 77 Eng. Rep. 194 ; 5 Co. Rep. 91, is an English common law case reported by Sir Edward Coke, who was then the Attorney General of England. In the US, it is recognised as establishing the "knock and announce" rule....
- Sneak and peek warrantSneak and peek warrantA sneak and peek search warrant is a search warrant authorizing the law enforcement officers executing it to effect physical entry into private premises without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premises; usually, such entry requires a...