Executing a Warrant Flashcards
Knock and Announce
State and federal statutes require officers to announce their “authority and purpose” before entering a home. Aka they have to say that they are the police and they are there to execute a warrant.
Wilson v. Arkansas (SCOTUS 1995)
This case held that knock and announce is not required by the 4th amendment, but may contribute to the assessment of a search’s reasonableness.
Unannounced entry may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
1. Hot pursuit
2. Risk of destruction of evidence
3. When the safety of an officer is at risk
Wilson Exceptions to Knock and Announce Requirement
Unannounced entry may be appropriate in the following circumstances:
1. During hot pursuit
2. When there is a risk that evidence will be destroyed
3. When the safety of the officer is at risk
Richards v. Wisconsin (SCOTUS 1997)
This case held that it is unconstitutional for there to be a firm rule holding that you do not need to knock and announce in cases involving drugs.
It also held that a no knock warrant here was justified under the exigency standard because announcing their presence risked the destruction of evidence.
What happens if a police officer has a warrant but are refused admittance into the home?
If this happens, the police can break down the door to the home.
What allows an officer to determine they have been denied admittance into a home?
- Explicit refusal
- Constructive refusal, including delay or no response after waiting a period of time HOWEVER the amount the officers have to wait depend on the size of the premises and the time of night (i.e. if people are not awake they will not be quick to answer the door).
For instance, under Knapp (10th cir) a 12 second delay was enough to determine that there was refused admittance. Under Moore (10th cir) a 3 second delay and break in was considered instantaneous.
Are the police allowed to trick someone into opening the door so they can execute a warrant?
Yes.
Do the police need a no-knock warrant to connect a no-knock search?
These are not needed for the police to conduct a no-knock warrant, however they go to the reasonableness of the search.
If there is a no-knock warrant, the defendant has the burden of proving this was unreasonable, given lack of exigencies. If not, the state of the burden of proving exigencies.
Gerstein v. Pugh (SCOTUS 1975)
This case held that after a warrantless arrest, a person has the right to a “prompt” post-arrest probable cause hearing by a magistrate. This is required by the 4th amendment.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (SCOTUS 1991)
This case held that 48 hours is generally a reasonable time for a “prompt” probable cause hearing to occur. However, given the totality of the circumstances, “prompt” may be longer or shorter.
If the defendant wants the hearing to be sooner than 48 hours, they have the burden of proving that the delay was not reasonable. If a defendant is held longer than 48 hours, the State has the burden of proving that the delay was reasonable given an emergency or other extraordinary circumstance.
Generally, what is the reasonable amount of time for a probable cause hearing to be considered “prompt”?
48 hours
What are unreasonable excuses for the State to delay a probable cause hearing? Reasonable excuses to delay past 48 hours? Reasonable excuses to wait up to 48 hours?
Unreasonable to delay:
1. The need to gather additional evidence to prove probable cause.
2. Ill will toward the suspect
3. A lack of excuses
Reasonable to delay up to 48 hours:
1. Need to transport suspect
2. Late night arrests when magistrate is not available.
3. Trouble coordinating time with arresting officer.
Reasonable to delay past 48 hours: emergencies
Payton v. New York (SCOTUS 1980)
This case held that the police cannot conduct a warrantless arrest of someone in their home unless there are exigent circumstances. An arrest warrant implies the authority to enter someone’s house. Without a warrant, the police do not have the authority to enter a person’s home.
Is the main hallway of a common entryway considered someone’s home?
No. The police can make a warrantless arrest of a person here. Holland 2nd Cir.
Steagald v. United States (SCOTUS 1981)
If the police believe an arrestee will be found in another person’s house, they need a warrant to enter that house UNLESS they have consent to come into the house or there are exigent circumstances.
This restriction does not apply to roommates/co-habitants or people who frequently stay at one home even though they have a separate residence.
