United States v. Banks
2003 U.S. LEXIS 8966, 124 S. Ct. 521, 157 L. Ed. 2d 343 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The reasonableness of the time officers must wait after knocking and announcing before making a forcible entry is determined by the totality of the circumstances, and a 15-to-20-second wait is reasonable in a felony drug case where there is a risk of imminent evidence destruction.
Facts:
- Police and FBI agents obtained a warrant to search the two-bedroom apartment of Lashawn Banks for cocaine.
- At approximately 2:00 PM on a Wednesday, officers arrived at Banks's apartment.
- Officers at the front door knocked loudly and called out "police search warrant."
- After waiting 15 to 20 seconds with no response, the officers used a battering ram to break open the front door.
- Banks was in the shower at the time of the entry and did not hear the knock or announcement.
- The subsequent search of the apartment yielded crack cocaine, weapons, and other evidence of drug dealing.
Procedural Posture:
- Banks was charged with drug and firearms offenses in the U.S. District Court.
- Banks filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers waited an unreasonably short time before entry.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress.
- Banks entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, finding the entry unconstitutional and ordering the evidence suppressed.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 15-to-20-second wait by police after knocking and announcing their authority before forcibly entering an apartment to execute a search warrant for disposable narcotics violate the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. A 15-to-20-second wait before forcible entry was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The reasonableness of a search must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, not a rigid set of rules. When exigent circumstances, such as the potential for evidence destruction, exist, the time officers must wait after announcing their presence is shortened. In this case, the crucial factor was the risk that Banks could dispose of the cocaine. The Court reasoned that 15 to 20 seconds is a sufficient amount of time for a drug dealer to begin flushing narcotics down a drain. Therefore, the exigency of imminent evidence destruction ripened during that interval, justifying the officers' forcible entry. The reasonableness of the officers' actions is judged from their perspective at the scene, making Banks's actual location in the shower irrelevant to the analysis.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Court's preference for a flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test over rigid, categorical frameworks for Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiries. It establishes that in cases involving easily disposable evidence like narcotics, the 'reasonable wait time' after a knock and announce is determined by the time it takes to begin destroying evidence, not the time it takes for an occupant to answer the door. This precedent gives law enforcement significant latitude when executing warrants in drug cases, as the risk of evidence destruction creates an exigent circumstance that can justify a very short wait before forcible entry. The ruling effectively shortens the constitutionally required waiting period in a large category of criminal investigations.
