Knock-Notice
Category > Knock-Notice
The court erred by excluding testimony on whether the officer waited long enough to comply with knock-notice requirements but suppression of evidence was not the remedy.The trial court erred at the hearing on the suppression motion by excluding testimony on whether the officers waited long enough to comply with the knock-notice requirement. However, the error was harmless because even if the knock-notice violation occurred, it would not have resulted in the suppression of evidence - the only remedy the defendant requested.id: 25026
Knocking, announcing and bursting through the door does not constitute substantial compliance with the knock-notice laws.The trial court's ruling when denying the suppression motion was not clear but seemed to suggest that the officers did not comply with the knock-notice law, but since they knocked and announced their presence before entering, they substantially complied. However, simply knocking, announcing and bursting through the door would not constitute substantial compliance. If the defense version of the facts that the police waited only 8-10 seconds before entering is believed, there may not be a finding of substantial compliance. If the police version of a 30 second time period is believed, it may be determined that they substantially complied. Since the case was being remanded for retrial on other issues, this ruling was reversed and remanded with directions.id: 18769
Supreme Court rules knock and announce is part of Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry.Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, held that the common law principle that officers ought generally to knock and announce their presence and authority before breaking open doors of a dwelling is part of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The court acknowledged that unannounced entries may be reasonable under a variety of circumstances. But in this case, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not decide whether the arguably unannounced entry was reasonable. The case was remanded to permit the state court to address this question.id: 11028
A defendant who was absent when his home was searched had a sufficient privacy interest to assert a knock-notice violation.A person who is absent at the time of a search of his home nevertheless has a sufficient privacy interest in the premises to assert a knock-notice violation.id: 14916
Supreme Court holds that knock-and-announce violation does not require suppressionThe Fourth Amendment requires police officers executing a search warrant to knock on the door of the premises for which they have the warrant and-announce their presence before entering. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.id: 20180
Violation of the knock-notice rule does not justify application of the exclusionary rule.Defendant argued the arresting officer's violation of the knock and announce rule required exclusion of the evidence. However, the Supreme Court recently ruled in Hudson v Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. ___, that violation of the knock-notice rule does not justify application of the exclusionary rule.id: 19207
Exigent circumstances excused compliance with knock-notice requirements where there were drug sales on the premises, defendant was on probation for drug sales, officers had a noisy confrontation with another suspect outside the house, and announced their presence and purpose.The circumstances afforded sufficient exigency to justify a police entry to conduct a search of a house without complying with the knock-notice rule, to prevent destruction of evidence. This "no-knock" entry was justified due to 1) contemporaneous, ongoing illegal drug sales on the premises raising the reasonable inference that more drugs were inside, 2) the officer's knowledge that defendant was on probation for a drug offense and had consented to a warrantless search of the premises, 3) the unplanned noisy confrontation with a suspect directly outside defendant's open doorway, and 4) the officer's loud announcement of their presence and purpose to the suspect.
id: 18824
Officer complied with knock-notice rule which applied to instant entry after he found a two year-old boy wandering the neighborhood in his diaper.A two year-old boy was found wandering the neighborhood in only a diaper and calling for his mother. With the various possibilities accompanying this situation, exigent circumstances existed. However, upon reaching the child's (and defendant's) house, the officer was required to comply with the knock-notice rule. The officer complied with these requirements as he twice knocked on the door and identified himself before entering the residence. Moreover, defendant voluntarily consented to the search even though he was not permitted to enter the kitchen prior to the search and the officer was accompanied by the child.id: 15625
Officers' announcement of purpose need not precede the opening of the door in order to satisfy knock-notice requirements.The trial court erred in finding the officers' announcement of purpose must precede the opening of the door in order to satisfy the constitutional and statutory knock-notice requirements. The court erred in granting the suppression motion after finding the officers had not announced their purpose until after the front door was opened in response to their knocks.id: 15626
Knock-notice requirements do not apply at interior doors.Compliance with knock-notice before entering a house in sufficient and once inside, law enforcement officers need not again comply before entering a closed inner room. Because the officers complied with knock-notice requirements at the front door, they were under no constitutional or statutory obligation to repeat the notice at the closed bedroom door.id: 15624
The officers substantially complied with the knock-notice requirement even though they only waited 15 to 20 seconds before entering.There was a technical violation of the knock-notice requirement in that the officers waited only 15-20 seconds to enter the residence after announcing their presence. However, the residence was small, the search occurred in the early evening, and the officers did not hear voices or the sound of feet approaching the door. The officers substantially complied with the knock-notice requirement and the motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.id: 14917
Eighteen seconds of silence reasonably allowed the officer to conclude that his demand for admittance was being declined.An eighteen second delay between knocking on appellant's door in the early afternoon of a Friday, and entering the residence complied with the knock-notice requirements. Even if the delay was not long enough to amount to an implicit refusal of entry, the officers' actions constituted substantial compliance with the rules.id: 11020
Failing to wait for refused admittance before entering came within the useless gesture exception to the knock-notice rule.The uniformed officer displayed his badge through the closed screen door, made eye contact with the occupants in the living room, announced his identity and possession of a warrant, and walked in. His failure to await a response before entering was a violation of the knock-notice requirement. His actions amounted to substantial compliance with the requirement and full compliance was excused under the federal useless gesture exception.id: 11021
Knock-notice compliance before entering the house is sufficient and once inside compliance is not required again before entering a closed inner room.An officer who has complied with Penal Code section 1531 before entering a house to execute a search warrant need not again observe the requirements of that section before entering an inner room through a closed door.id: 11022
Knock-notice not required for inner offices within the business.Officers entered defendant's business which had an Open for Business sign in the window. They then identified themselves to the proprietor of the business, informed him of their authority and purpose for being on the premises and read the contents of the search warrant to him. Under the circumstances there was no need to comply with the knock-notice requirements before entering the inner offices within the business.id: 11023
Minor's conduct in refusing to stop when so ordered rendered futile any demand for entrance.Officer witnessed minor traffic violations by appellant. He activated his lights and siren and told appellant to stop, which appellant refused to do. Appellant then pulled up in front of his house and ran inside. Under the circumstances the officer was not required to comply with the knock-notice provisions before entering the house.id: 11024
Officer did not violate knock-notice provisions in entering hotel room without announcing his presence where the door was open, defendant appeared to be overdosed lying next to heroin and his hands were not in plain view.Officers were in a hotel investigating narcotics activity in a particular room and while walking down the hallway an officer noticed the door to another room was wide open, a man was in the fetal position with his head lying on a dresser. A jagged mirror with several black balls on top which appeared to be heroin was located on the dresser above his head. The officer could not see defendant's hands. The officer walked into the room to check on defendant's welfare and to see if the black balls were heroin. He did not announce his presence before entering the room. However, there is an exception to the announcement requirement where there is a potential for violence and peril to the officers. The exception applied here and the officer acted reasonably in entering the room. Entry into the room to check on defendant's condition was also justified by exigent circumstances.id: 11025
Officers' failure to announce their purpose was justified where appellant was known to carry weapons.Police officers knocked on appellant's hotel room door. When appellant appeared at the window, an announcement of purpose before arresting him would have been hazardous since he was known to carry weapons. Seizure of appellant, whether preceded or followed by an announcement of purpose was justified under the circumstances.id: 11026
Police who complied with knock-notice requirements before entering the outer door of the apartment were not required to knock and announce before entering the bedroom.Police, looking to execute an arrest warrant, complied with the knock-notice provisions when entering the outer door of the apartment. Defendant argued police were also required to comply with the knock-notice requirements before entering the inner door to his bedroom where he was arrested. However, the police were not required to knock and announce at the bedroom door. Contrary to defendant's argument the analysis did not begin with the fact of the protective sweep once the officers had entered the apartment.id: 11027
Where probable cause to arrest existed illegal entry of motel room and knock-notice violation did not invalidate the arrest or require suppression of subsequent statements.Officers had probable cause to arrest defendant. The fact that police may have illegally entered the motel room to make the warrantless arrest neither invalidated the arrest itself nor required suppression of the post arrest statements defendant made at the police station. Likewise, the officers' failure to comply with knock-notice requirement before entering the motel room did not vitiate the officers' right to arrest defendant and defendant's subsequent statements to the police were admissible.id: 10992
A person may not brandish a weapon in the presence of an officer despite a violation of knock-notice requirements.Defendant was convicted of exhibiting a firearm in the presence of a peace officer. He argued the officers failed to comply with the knock-notice requirements of Penal Code section 1531 and therefore were not engaged in the performance of their duties. However, a defendant may not utilize the exclusionary rule to obtain a license to kill or threaten a police officer merely because the officer may have entered his residence in violation of section 1231. Since the resident has no right to prevent entry for the service of a search warrant, his forcible resistance thereto should not result in judicial immunity from prosecution despite the knock-notice violation.id: 10778
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850