Yes. The 'knock and announce' rule is a part of what makes a police search 'reasonable' under the Constitution. The Court explained that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment, they based it on old English laws. For centuries, that law said that officials should announce who they are and why they're there before breaking into someone's home. This shows that the Founders meant for the way police enter a house to be part of the search's fairness. However, the Court said this rule isn't absolute; if police have a good reason to think knocking would be dangerous or that a suspect would destroy evidence, they might be allowed to enter without announcing first.

The Supreme Court said that the rule about police knocking and announcing is usually part of what makes a search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the people who wrote the amendment probably thought how the police enter a home matters. But, the Fourth Amendment is flexible, so there can be times when police might not have to knock and announce, like if it would be dangerous or if evidence might be destroyed. The Court sent the case back to the lower courts to decide if the police were okay to not knock and announce in this specific situation.

We conclude that the rule about police knocking and announcing is usually part of what makes a search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the people who wrote the Amendment probably thought how officers enter a home matters. But the Fourth Amendment is flexible, so there can be times when officers might not have to knock and announce, like if it would be dangerous or if evidence might be destroyed. We send the case back to the lower courts to decide if the police were okay to not knock and announce in this specific situation.

—the Supreme Court held that the "common-law `knock and announce'principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment. "

The Fourth Amendment incorporates "the common law requirement that police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry."

The United States Supreme Court has determined that "the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering [,]" and "in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

—holding that common-law "knock and announce" rule is "part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry

Framers of the Fourth Amendment thought that the method of an officer's entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search and seizure.

The Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires that prior to executing a search warrant the police must knock on the door, announce their identity and authority, and wait a reasonable time for the occupants to respond before entering forcibly.

The no-knock warrant removed this search from the realm of the ordinary by legitimizing a search that was far more intrusive than the normal police search of a home, in which the police generally are required to knock at the door, announce their identity and purpose, and give the home's inhabitants a reasonable opportunity peaceably to accede to the police entry.

" `[T] he underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable.'"

We recognized in Wilson that the knock and announce requirement could give way "under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence," or "where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given."

Yes. The common-law 'knock and announce' principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry. The Court reasoned that to determine the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection against 'unreasonable searches and seizures,' it is necessary to look to the common law at the time of the framing. An examination of historical sources, including Semayne’s Case and the writings of Blackstone and Hale, reveals a long-standing principle that officers should announce their presence and authority before breaking into a dwelling. This principle was widely adopted in early American law, indicating the Framers considered the method of an officer's entry to be a factor in assessing reasonableness. However, the Court clarified that this is not an inflexible rule; the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard is flexible and an unannounced entry may be justified by countervailing law enforcement interests, such as the threat of violence or the potential for destruction of evidence.

The Supreme Court held that the common-law 'knock and announce' principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry because the Framers likely considered the manner of an officer's entry into a dwelling as a factor in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure. However, the Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness does not mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests. I conclude that there are circumstances where an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, such as when there is a threat of physical violence or a belief that evidence would likely be destroyed if notice were given. The case is remanded to determine if the unannounced entry was reasonable under the specific circumstances of this case.

We hold that the common-law 'knock and announce' principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness inquiry because the Framers likely considered the manner of an officer's entry into a dwelling as a factor in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure. However, the Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness does not mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests. We conclude that there are circumstances where an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, such as when there is a threat of physical violence or a belief that evidence would likely be destroyed if notice were given. This case is remanded to determine if the unannounced entry was reasonable under the specific circumstances of this case.

Wilson v. Arkansas

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot