Document: 514 U.S. 927115 S.Ct. 1914131 L.Ed.2d 976 Sharlene WILSON, Petitionerv.ARKANSAS. No. 94-5707. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 28, 1995. Decided May 22, Syllabus* Petitioner was convicted on state-law drug charges after Arkansas trial court denied her evidence-suppression motion, in which she asserted that search home invalid because, inter alia, police had violated common-law principle requiring them to announce their presence and authority before entering. The State affirmed, rejecting petitioner's argument "knock announce" is required by Fourth Amendment. Held: knock-and-announce forms a part Amendment reasonableness inquiry. Pp. __. (a) An officer's unannounced entry into might, some circumstances, be unreasonable under In evaluating scope constitutional right secure one's house, this has looked traditional protections against searches seizures afforded common law at time framing. Given longstanding endorsement practice announcement, wealth founding-era commentaries, provisions, statutes, cases espousing or supporting principle, little doubt Amendment's Framers thought whether officers announced entering dwelling among factors considered assessing search's reasonableness. Nevertheless, never stated as an inflexible rule announcement all circumstances. Countervailing enforcement interests—including, e.g., threat physical harm police, fact officer pursuing recently escaped arrestee, existence reason believe evidence would likely destroyed if advance notice were given may establish ableness entry. For now, leaves lower courts task determining such relevant countervailing factors. (c) Respondent's reasons for affirming judgment below—that reasonably believed prior have placed peril produced risk petitioner destroy easily disposable narcotics evidence—may well provide necessary justification case. case remanded allow state make determination first instance. P. 10. 317 Ark. 548, 878 S.W.2d 755, reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. John Wesley Hall, Jr., appointed Court, Little Rock, AR, petitioner. J. Winston Bryant, respondent. Michael R. Dreeben, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, special leave Justice THOMAS 1 At framing, seizure recognized break open doors dwelling, but generally indicated he ought his authority. case, we hold inquiry 2 * During November December 1992, Wilson made series sales informant acting direction Police. late November, purchased marijuana methamphetamine shared with Bryson Jacobs. On 30, telephoned arranged meet local store buy marijuana. According testimony presented below, semiautomatic pistol meeting waved it informant's face, threatening kill turned out working police. then sold bag 3 next day, applied obtained warrants arrest both Affidavits filed support set forth details transactions Jacobs previously been arson firebombing. conducted later afternoon. Police found main door open. While opening unlocked screen residence, they identified themselves warrant. Once inside home, seized marijuana, methamphetamine, valium, paraphernalia, gun, ammunition. They also bathroom, flushing down toilet. arrested charged delivery possession 4 Before trial, motion suppress during search. various grounds, including failed home. summarily suppression motion. After jury sentenced 32 years prison. 5 affirmed conviction appeal. 755 (1994). noted "the entered while identifying themselves," rejected requires knock residence." Id., 553, S.W.2d, 758 (emphasis added). Finding "no [petitioner's] theory Amendment," concluded neither nor evidence. Ibid. 6 We granted certiorari resolve conflict inquiry.1 513 ----, 115 571, 130 488 does, accordingly reverse remand. II 7 Constitution protects "[t]he people persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures." right, See California v. Hodari D., 499 621, 624, 111 1547, 1549-50, 113 690 (1991); Watson, 423 411, 418-420, 96 820, 825-26, 46 598 (1976); Carroll States, 267 132, 149, 45 280, 283-84, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). "Although underlying command always reasonable," New Jersey T.L.O., 469 325, 337, 105 733, 740, 83 720 (1985), our effort give content term guided meaning ascribed examination no depend 8 Although protected man's house "his castle defense asylum," W. Blackstone, Commentaries *288 (hereinafter Blackstone), long held "when King party, sheriff (if not open) party's either him, do other execution K[ing]'s process, otherwise cannot enter." Semayne's Case, Co. Rep. 91a, 91b, 77 Eng.Rep. 194, 195 (K.B.1603). To rule, however, appended important qualification: 9 "But breaks it, signify cause coming, request . ., without default owner abhors destruction breaking any (which habitation safety man) great damage inconvenience might ensue when him; perhaps did know which, notice, presumed obey it. ." Ibid., Eng.Rep., 195-196. 10 Case Richard Curtis, Fost. 135, 137, 168 67, 68 (Crown 1757) ("[N]o precise form words kind. It sufficient party hath cometh mere trespasser, claiming act proper ."); Lee Gansell, Lofft 374, 381-382, 98 700, 705 (K.B.1774) ("[A]s outer door, now clearly taken" privileged; broken due notification demand refused").2 11 Several prominent commentators agreed basic principle. Sir Matthew Hale, "constant practice" sure offender there, acquainting business, demanding prisoner, refuses door." M. Pleas Crown *582. William Hawkins propounded similar principle: doth allow" "but necessity," is, unless "first those him admittance." Hawkins, Crown, ch. 14, § 1, p. 138 (6th ed. 1787). Blackstone simply "justify doors, quietly delivered." *412. 12 woven quickly fabric early American law. Most ratified enacted provisions statutes incorporating English law, see, N.J. Const. 1776, Federal Constitutions 2598 (F. Thorpe 1909) ("[T]he England shall still remain force, until [it] altered future Legislature"); N.Y. 1777, Art. 35, id., 2635 ("[S]uch parts [New York April 19, 1775] continue State, subject alterations legislature shall, from time, concerning same"); Ordinances 5, 6, Statutes Large Virginia 127 (W. Hening 1821) decision, full same legislative power colony"), few specifically embracing view permitted once admittance refused, Act Nov. 8, 1782, 15, ¶ Acts Laws Massachusetts 193 (1782); Apr. 13, 39, 3, 480 (1886); June 24, 317, 18, General Assembly New-Jersey (1784) (reprinted First 293-294 (J. Cushing comp.1981)); Dec. 23, 1780, 925, Pennsylvania 255 Mitchell & H. Flanders comp.1904). Early similarly embraced See, Walker Fox, Ky. 404, 405 (1834); Burton Wilkinson, 18 Vt. 186, 189 (1846); Howe Butterfield, 58 Mass. 302, 305 (1849). Blakey, Rule Announcement Unlawful Entry, 112 U.Pa.L.Rev. 499, 504-508 (1964) (collecting cases). 13 Our own acknowledged commonlaw "embedded Anglo-American law," Miller 357 301, 313, 78 1190, 1198, 1332 (1958), squarely element Amendment.3 so hold. method seizure. Contrary decision circumstances 14 This say, course, every must preceded announcement. flexible requirement should read mandate rigid ignores interests. As even concedes, Ker California, 374 38, 1623, 1632, 726 (1963) (plurality opinion) ("[I]t permissible executing certain circumstances"); see also, White Wiltsheire, Rolle ---, 81 709, 710 (K.B.1619) (upholding sheriff's plaintiff's bailiffs imprisoned attempted earlier seizure); Pugh Griffith, Ad. E. 827, 840-841, 681, 686 (K.B.1838) (holding necessity obviated, because there nobody whom could made" noting Wiltsheire possibility "other occasions where broken" demand) 15 Indeed, admonition "ought coming," Co.Rep., 195, extended conclusively context felony arrests. supra, 503 ("The application criminal judicially settled"); Launock Brown, B. Ald. 592, 593, 106 482, 483 (K.B.1819) ("It present us decide how far, person felony, previous you justify house"); Murfree, Law Sheriffs Other Ministerial Officers 1163, 631 (1st 1884) ("[A]lthough question, better seems that, necessary, especially as, many cases, delay incident enable prisoner escape"). gradually involving felonies, continued recognize presumption favor necessarily way contrary considerations. 16 Thus, justified belief avoid ensue," 196, yield presenting violence. Read Conn. 166, 170 (1822) (plaintiff who "had resolved resist shedding blood within spirit notice"); Mahomed Queen, Moore 239, 247, 293, 296 (P.C.1843) ("While firing pistols them, ask pleased them? its wisdom only ceremony observed possibly attended advantage, render unnecessary"). Similarly, dispense escapes retreats dwelling. ibid.; Allen Martin, Wend. 300, 304 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1833). Proof "demand refusal" deemed unnecessary "senseless ceremony" require pursuit arrestee retake him. 304. Finally, given. Ker, U.S., 40-41, S.Ct., 1633-1634 opinion); People Maddox, Cal.2d 305-306, 294 P.2d (1956). 17 need attempt comprehensive catalog here. reasonable although constitutionally defective enter interests III Respondent contends below two reasons. First, respondent argues peril, knowledge threatened government weapon Mr. Second, suggests 19 These considerations Because address sufficiency, remand findings reversed, further proceedings inconsistent opinion.4 20 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 26 282, 287, 50 499. Gonzalez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1048, 259 Cal.Rptr. 846, 848 (1989) ("Announcement service warrant [are] reasonableness"); Saechao, 129 Ill.2d 522, 531, 136 Ill.Dec. 59, 63, 544 N.E.2d 745, 749 absence consideration subsequent reasonable") (internal quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth Goggin, 412 200, 202, 587 785, 787 (1992) ("Our one compelled"). "knock-and-announce" appears predate usually cited judicial source standard. itself indicates doctrine traced statute 1275, affirmance law." 196 (referring Edw., 17, Magna Carta Hen. (O. Ruffhead 1769) (providing takes beasts another causes "to driven Castle Fortress," makes "solem[n] deman[d]" deliverance beasts, "did Beasts incontinent," "shall said Fortress beaten Recovery")). Miller, discussion focused statutory U.S.C. 3109 (1958 ed.), 306, 308, 1194, 1195, 1197-1198. Sabbath 391 585, 591, n. 88 1755, 1759, 828 (1968) (suggesting "common law" "exceptions" codified 3109); 1633-1634, (reasoning "exigent circumstances" addressing antecedent question lack circumstances). amici affirm denial alternative ground: exclusion compelled remedy unreasonableness stems failure Analogizing "independent source" Segura 468 796, 805, 813-816, 104 3380, 3385, 3389-3391, 82 599 (1984), "inevitable discovery" adopted Nix Williams, 467 431, 440-448, 2501, 2507-2511, 377 argue unreasonable, causally disconnected violation goes beyond goal precluding benefit flowing violation. remedial issue addressed narrow certiorari, decline these arguments.

Category: 0