Wilson v. Arkansas:   
U.S. Supreme Court, 1995. 

Statement of the Case: 

Procedure: 

Facts:

      Wilson, Drug Dealer, sold marijuana to a police informant on different occasions and even threatened to kill the informant with a gun if he turned out to be working for the police. The police officers used this evidence to obtain a warrant to search the petitioner's house and arrest the petitioner and her friend.

      When the officers arrived at Wilson's house, the front door was wide open and the officer opened the unlocked screen door and made an entry while announcing at the same time that they were from the police department and they had a warrant. The petitioner was found in the restroom where she was trying to flush down marijuana and she was arrested. Wilson filed a motion to suppress the evidence based on the claim that the officers did not knock and announce their presence before entering the house.

Issue:

      Whether the lower courts erred in ruling that it was not required to “knock and announce” that law enforcement was entering the home when the police arrived at a house with a search warrant.

Procedural Result:

      The lower courts rejected the motion and the petitioner was convicted for 32 years in prison. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the conviction.

Holding:

      It is required to “knock and announce” that law enforcement was entering the home when the police arrived at a house with a search warrant.

Reasoning:

• During the construction of the Constitution, the common-law knock and announce rule was well accepted and practiced. So it would be reasonable to assume that the framers considered it to be part of Fourth Amendment for the police officers to knock and ask the suspects to open the door before breaking into the homes of people.
• The court went on to state that this knock and announce principle is not an inflexible requirement which applies to every situation.
  • For example, if a prisoner escapes from jail and hides in his home, the police officers do not have to knock and ask the prisoner to open the door to his house.
  • Also, if there is a risk that evidence will be destroyed if the police knocked and announced, then the officers do not have to follow this rule.
• Therefore, the court ruled that unless these exigent circumstances exist, the police officers are required to knock and announce their presence before breaking into the houses of suspected criminals
• To “knock and announce” is part of the reasonableness of a reasonable search and seizure of the 4^th amendment.
• The exigent circumstances may have existed in this case, but it has to be remanded for the lower courts to decide those facts.

Additional Points: 

General Categories that justify exemption from knock and announce requirements:

• Richards v. Wisconsin:  Supreme Court overruled per se exception to knock and announce rule for felony drug investigations.
  • Two reasons:  Substantial overgeneralization and can easily be applied to everything, thus rendering the knock and announce rule meaningless.
• What kind of dangers justify dispensing with the requirement?
  • Police must have reasonable suspicion that, under those circumstances, it would be:
    • Dangerous or futile, OR
    • Inhibit the effective investigation of the crime (like by allowing destruction of evidence). 
• United States v. Ramirez:  It does not violate the 4^th amendment to destroy property (ie. a window) when entering without meeting the “knock and announce” rule, although excessive or unnecessary destruction of property violates the 4^th amendment, although it does not make the fruits of the search subject to suppression.

• United States v. Banks:  Officers broke down the door of Banks’ small apartment after “knocking and announcing,” but receiving no response in 15-20 seconds, since Banks was in the shower.  They found cocaine and he claimed they violated the 4^th, and filed a motion to suppress.
  • Supreme Court ruled that the time required to wait was to be based on the totality of the circumstances, on a case by case basis.
  • It was reasonable because more than 15-20 seconds was enough time to flush cocaine down the toilet.
  • Rule:  Reasonableness of suspecting refusal turns on whether “an occupant has time to get to the door.” 
• Execution of a warrant can be unconstitutional, although the warrant is valid:
• Wilson v. Layne:  Held bringing 3^rd parties, like the media, into someone’s house when police are executing a warrant violates the 4^th amendment, when they are not aiding in the execution of the warrant.
  • Case where father cuffed in front of media, when cops mistakenly thought they were in the son’s house and arresting the son.  They released him immediately and were sued.