RICHARDS v. WISCONSIN
U.S. Supreme Court
April 28, 1997
520 U.S. 385
(In a 9 - 0 "good news - bad news" case the Big Court says
officers can dispense with the 4th Amendment requirement to
knock and announce in search warrant entries, when
circumstances, at the time of the entry, provide the officers with
reasonable suspicion that their safety, or subject's possible
escape or likely destruction of evidence require that the entry
be without knock and announcement. The bad news is that the
Wisconsin blanket rule permitting no-knock search warrant
entries in all felony drug situations was rejected.)
In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) the U.S. Supreme Court held
that the 4th Amendment does incorporate the common law requirement that
police knock on a dwelling's door and announce their identity and purpose before
entry, even with a search warrant. However, in Wilson , they said that was not a
hard and fast rule and, if countervailing law enforcement interests (officer safety,
escape and/or destruction of evidence) required there be no knock and
announcement that was O.K. They left it to lower courts to determine the
circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable.
Shortly before Wilson, in 1994, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had held
(State v. Stevens) that exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry are
always present in felony drug cases, because, in those cases, "... an extremely
high risk of serious, if not deadly injury to the police, as well as the potential for
the disposal of drugs by the occupants prior to entry by the police" always exists.
Simply-put, the Wisconsin rule was that police in that state did not need specific
information about dangerousness, or the possible destruction of drugs in a
particular case, in order to dispense with the knock and announce requirement in
felony drug cases.
Nice try, says the U.S. Big Court, but wrong! The "Supremes" conclude
that, if a "per se" exception were allowed for each criminal activity category that
included a considerable risk of danger or destruction of evidence, the knock and
announce requirement would be meaningless.
Here, police officers in Madison, Wisconsin, obtained a search warrant for
Richards' hotel room for drugs and paraphernalia. The warrant was one of the
results of a lengthy investigation which determined that several persons were
selling drugs out of downtown Madison hotels. In connection with the application
for Richards' search warrant the police requested a warrant with advanced, builtin authorization for a no-knock entry. The judge rejected that request on the
grounds that there was no evidence in their probable cause to justify a no-knock
warrant.
The officers arrived at the hotel at 3:40 a.m. There were several
plainclothes officers, at least one uniformed officer and the lead officer was
dressed as a maintenance man. The lead officer knocked on Richards' door and
announced "maintenance". (For those of my friends out there who are now
saying, "Hot damn! He did announce"; let me remind you he must announce
"police", not "maintenance".)
Anyway, Richards cracks open his door, chain still on, sees the uniformed
officer and slams the door closed, obviously not needing "maintenance" at 3:40
a.m. The officers break open the door and catch Richards as he's going through
a window. (I presume it was a first floor room.) They find cash and plastic bags
with cocaine above loose bathroom ceiling tiles. (Again, for some of my friends
out there, no, the loose tiles would not justify a "maintenance" entry.)
The defense claimed 4th Amendment violation because the police did not
knock and announce. The prosecution cites the wonderful Wisconsin rule that all
is fair in love, war and felony drug searches and, therefore, no knock and
announce was necessary. The trial court and Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed,
not seeing anything in Wilson v. Arkansas to prohibit such a policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court says the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not look
closely enough because the 4th Amendment and Wilson v. Arkansas do require
knock and announce.
The Big Court reiterates that there is an exception to the knock and
announce rule when officers have reasonable suspicion that knocking and
2
announcing their identity and purpose would be dangerous or futile, or that it
would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime, i.e., destruction of evidence.
Therefore, we and the Madison police still win here because the Court
concludes, "Although we reject the Wisconsin court's blanket exception to the
knock and announce requirement, we conclude that the officers' no-knock entry
into Richards' hotel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment. We agree ...
that circumstances in this case show that the officers had a reasonable suspicion
that Richards might destroy evidence if given further opportunity to do so... actual
circumstances - petitioner's apparent recognition of the officers, combined with
the easily disposable nature of the drugs - justified the officers' ultimate decision
to enter without first announcing their presence and authority."
(Bottom line? Don't forget, it's not just knock or noknock, it's knock and announce, i.e., "Police-Search
Warrant!", in a loud, so-to-speak, voice.)
3