T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J O H N H E N R Y B R O W N , J R ., D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 3370 (D i stri ctof K ansas) ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR- 4 0 1 2 2 - J AR)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , HOLL OW AY , and M c KAY , C ir c u it J u d g e s . I . I nt roduct i on A one- counti ndi ctm entchar ged J ohn H enryB r ow n, J r . w i th pos s es s i on of a fire a rm a f

ter c o n v ictio n fo r a m isd e m e a n o r c rim e o f d o m e stic v io len c e in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(9 ). P o lice o ffice rs s e ize d th e w e a p o n w h ile ex ec u ti n g a se arc h w arran t w h ich e x p li cit lyau tho ri ze d them to en ter B row n ’s re sid e n c e w ith o u t k n o c k in g o r a n n o u n c in g th e ir p re se n c e . B ro w n m o v e d to- 2-

s uppr es s t he fi r earm undert he exc l us i onaryrul e, cl ai m i ng the no- knock s ear ch vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as deni ed the m ot i on. B r ow n ent er ed a c ondi t i onal gui l typl ea, w hi ch perm i t t ed appe al of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T hi s cour texer ci s es j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yhel d knock- anda n n o u n c e v io la tio n s d o n o t ju s tif ya p p lic a tio n o f

th e e x c lu s io n a ry ru le . Huds on v. Mi chigan , N o . 0 4 - 1 3 6 0 , 2 0 0 6 WL 1 6 4 0 5 7 7 , a t* 9 ( U . S . J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ) . We t her efor e affi rm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f B ro w n ’s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . I I . Backg r ound Pol i ce de t ect i ve Todd G odfr eys ubm i t t ed t o a K ans as s t at e courtan aff i davi tfora w arr antt o s ear ch forcoca i ne and a s s oci at ed par aphernal i a at B r ow n’ s r es i dence i n J unct i on C i ty , K ans as . I n hi s aff i davi t , G odfr eyaverr ed a confi dent i al i nform ant( “C I ”) pur chas ed coc ai ne fr om B r ow n dur i ng a “c ontr ol l ed buy . ” The C I advi s ed pol i ce thatB r ow n keptcoca i ne i n s m al l s andw i ch bag c o rn e rs o n h is p e rs o n o r i n h is b e d ro o m , w h ic h w a s a dja c e n t to a b a th ro o m . U ndert he ci r cumst ance s , G odfr eynot ed, i tw oul d be ea s yforB r ow n t o di s pos e of th e d ru g s if

h e w a s g iv e n a d v a n c e n o tice o f law e n fo rc e m e n t’s in ten t to se a rc h h is r es i dence . G odfr eyt her efor e r eques t ed perm i s s i on forpol i ce offi cer s t o ent er B r ow n’ s r es i dence w i t houtfi r s tannounci ng thei rpr es ence .- 3-

B ase d o n G o d fre y ’s affid av it , the c o u rtissue d a se arc h w arran t fo r B row n ’s hom e. T he w arr antauthor i zed pol i ce offi cer s t o ent erB r ow n’ s r es i dence w i thout fi rs tkn ock i ng or anno un ci ng t heirpresence. T he Jun ct i on C i tyT act i cal R espon se T eam execut ed the w arr anton M ay14, 2004. W i thoutannounci ng thei rpr es ence , t he t eam use d a batt er i ng r am t o gai n entryt o B r ow n’ s r es i dence . U pon s ear chi ng th e re s id e n c e , o ffic e rs fo u n d , in tera lia , a sh o tgu n u n d er the b ed in B row n ’s b e d ro o m . Pr os ecut or s char ged B r ow n w i th pos s es s i on of a f i r earm aft erconvi ct i on of a m is d e m e a n o r c ri m e o f d o m e s tic v io le n c e , a v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 9 ). B r ow n m oved t o s uppr es s t he w eapon, ar gui ng t he no- knock s ear ch w arr antand the T ac ti ca l R esp o n se T ea m ’s no -kn o ck en tryv iolated th e F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s pr ohi bi t i on on unr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed B r ow n’ s m ot i on. T he courthel d that , underthe ci r cumst ance s , a no- knock w a rra n t w a s ju stified to p re v e n t d e stru c tio n o f e v id e n c e b e c a u se th e a ffid a v it ind icated B row n k ep t i ll eg al dru g s in sm all p ac k ag es o n h is pe rson o r ne ar a bathr oom , w her e theycoul d be ea s i l ydes tr oy ed. B r ow n ent er ed a c ondi t i onal gui l t ypl ea, pr es ervi ng hi s r i ghtt o appea l the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d B r ow n t o tw o y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on and tw o y e a rs’ su p e rv ise d re lea se . B ro w n a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m oti on t o sup press .- 4-

II I. A n a ly sis G ener al l y , “l aw enfor cementoffi cer s m us tannounce t hei rpr es ence and pr ovi de r es i dent s an oppor tuni t yt o open the door ” befor e exe cut i ng a s ear ch w a rr a n t. Huds on , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 6 4 0 5 7 7 , at * 3 . T h e “ k n o c k -a n d -a n n o u n c e ” ru le is bo t h an ancientcom m on -l aw pri ncipl e and an elem ent of the reasonab l eness in q u ir yu n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. Id .; s ee Wi ls on v. A rkans as , 514 U . S. 927, 934 ( 1995) . T he rul e, how ever , i s s ubj ectt o cert ai n exce pt i ons . Fori ns t ance , pol i ce offi cer s need notknock and a nnounce “ w hen ci r cumst ance s pr es enta thr eat of phy s i cal vi ol ence , ori f ther e i s r eas on t o bel i eve thatevi dence w oul d l i kel ybe des t r oy ed i f adva nce not i ce w er e gi ven, ori f knocki ng and announc i ng w oul d be fut i l e. ” Huds on , 2006 W L 1640577, at*3 ( quot at i ons , ci t at i on, and al t er at i on o m itted). B row n arg u es th e T ac ti ca l R esp o n se T ea m ’s fa il u re to k n o ck b efo re enter i ng his apart m ent const i tutes a viol at i on of the F ou rth A m end m ent because t he ci r cumst ance s di d notj us t i fyan exe m pt i on fr om t he knock a nd announce rul e. H e cl ai m s t he appr opr i at e r emedyfors uch a vi ol at i on i s appl i cat i on of the e x c lu sio n a ryru le a n d su p p re ss io n o f a ll ev id e n c e se ize d d u rin g th e se a rc h o f h is r es i dence . A l t hough l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s r el i ed on a c our t - i s s ued w arr ant w hen theyexec ut ed thei rno- knock s ear ch of hi s r es i dence , B r ow n ar gues t he “good fa i t h” exc ept i on t o t he exc l us i onaryrul e, es t abl i s hed i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 4 6 8 U . S . 8 9 7 , 9 2 0

– 2 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , d o e s n o ta p p l y.- 5-

A f ter th e p a rties su b m itt e d b rie fin g a n d p re se n ted o ra l ar g u m e n t in th is cas e, t he Supr eme C our ti s s ued Huds on v. Mi chigan , w hi ch announc ed the excl us i onaryrul e i s notan appr opr i at e r emedyforvi ol at i ons of the knock- andannounce r equi r ement . 2006 W L 1640577, at*6. I n Huds on , the C our tnot ed “[s] up press i on of ev i den ce . . . has al w ay s been o ur l astres ort , no tou r fi rs t i m pul s e. ” Id . at * 4 . It ex p lain e d th a t ap p lica tio n o f th e e x c lu sio n a ryru le to knock- and- announce vi ol at i ons w oul d r es ul ti n gr eatcos t s , s uch as the r el eas e of d a n g e r o u s c r i mi n a l s i n t o s o c i e t ya n d th e p o t e n t i a l fo ra fl o o d o f n o - k n o c k c l a i ms b yc ri m in a l d e fe n d a n ts . Id . at *7 . Italso n o ted a v ail ab il ityo f th e e x clus ion ary ru le a s a re m e d yto k n o c k -a n d -a n n o u n c e v io latio n s m ig h t ca u se p o lice o ffice rs to w ai tt oo l on g b efore exec uti ng a sear ch, res ult i ng i n “p revent able vi olence against offi cer s i n s om e ca s es , and the des truct i on of evi dence i n m anyother s . ” Id . Huds on concl uded appl i cat i on of the exc l us i onaryrul e t o knock- and- announce v io la tio n s w o u ld h a v e littl e p ra c tic a l b e n e fit. Id . at*7–*8. M or eover , i tobs erved v ictim s o f

k n o c k -a n d -a n n o u n c e v io latio n s h a v e a n a d e q u a te r e m e d yin c iv il litig a tio n , s u c h a s s u its u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . Id . at *8

– * 9 . In su m , the C o u rt concl uded the cos t s of appl y i ng the exc l us i onaryrul e t o knock- and- announce vi ol at i ons gr eat l yout w ei gh the bene fi t s , and hel d knock- and- announce vi ol at i ons c a n n o t ju s tif

ys u p p re s s io n o f

e v id e n c e u n d e r t h e e x c lu s io n a ry ru le . Id .* 9 .- 6-

B eca us e Huds on pr ecl udes appl i cat i on of the exc l us i onaryrul e t o knockand- announce vi ol at i ons , t he di s tr i ctcour tw as corr ecti n deny i ng B r ow n’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . G i ven the C our t ’ s rul i ng i n Huds on , itis un n ec essa ryfo r th is co u rt t o det erm i ne w hether , undert he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e, l aw enfor cement ’ s fea rof evi dence des truct i on j us t i fi ed an e xempt i on fr om the knockand- announce rul e. D i s cus s i on of the Leon “good fa i th” exc ept i on t o the e x c lu s io n a ry ru le is s im ila rl yu n n e c e s s a ry. I V . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e affi rm the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f B row n ’s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . W e v a ca te thos e port i ons of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derw hi ch di s cus s w hetherl aw enfor cement ’ s “no- knock” s ear ch of Brow n’ s r es i dence cons t i tut ed a vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endmentand w hetherappl i cat i on of the Leon g o o d fa ith e x c e p tio n w a s w a rr a n te d u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e . W e se t as id e th e se p o rtio n s o f th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r so lelyto a v o id c o m p lica ted iss u e s o f re s ju d ica ta th a t o th e rw ise m ig h t re su lt i f B ro w n c h o o se s to b ri n g a c iv il a c tio n in th e f u tu re . Cf

. A l l en v. McC urry , 449 U . S. 90, 103–04 ( 1980) ( not i ng, i n cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , s t at e- courtj udgm ent s ordeci s i ons can- 7-

h a v e b in d in g e ffe c t in la te r fe d e ra l c iv il lit ig a tio n b ro u g h t p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ). In d o in g so , w e n e ith e r e x p re ss d isa p p ro v a l o f th e d istric t co u rt’s a n a ly sis of thes e i s s ues , norencour age Brow n t o fi l e ci vi l l i t i gat i on.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge