Knock and Announce

Question 1

Richards v Wisconsin

Answer 1

Facts
Police officers in Madison, Wisconsin, obtained a warrant to search Steiney Richards’ motel room for drugs but did not receive authorization for a “no-knock” entry. Upon attempting to execute the warrant at 3:40 a.m., the officers, disguised as maintenance personnel, were initially granted partial access by Richards. When Richards realized the presence of police officers, he attempted to close the door. The officers, after waiting briefly, forcibly entered the room, identifying themselves as police in the process. They arrested Richards and seized drugs and cash. Richards sought to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing the officers failed to knock and announce their presence as required by the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, emphasizing the risk that Richards might destroy evidence. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, establishing a rule that police officers are not required to knock and announce their presence when executing a search warrant in felony drug investigations.

Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment permit a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for police officers executing a search warrant in felony drug investigations?

Holding
No, the Fourth Amendment does not allow for a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for all felony drug investigations. However, the specific circumstances in this case justified the officers’ decision not to knock and announce, so the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was affirmed.