Opinion ID: 2262031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The middle of the night.

Text: As Justice Harlan observed for the Court in Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 498, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 1257, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958), it is difficult to imagine a more severe invasion of privacy than the night-time intrusion into a private home. The ram team's forced entry in this case took place at 1:40 a.m. The law does not require us to close our minds to facts which are known to all reasonably intelligent people. Poulnot v. District of Columbia, 608 A.2d at 134, 141-42 (D.C.1992). We may thus take judicial notice that, at that time of night, most people are in bed, and many are asleep. If a person is awakened by banging on the door, an immediate and appropriate response may not be feasible. [17] For at least a brief period, the erstwhile sleeper is likely to be too bewildered to react. He or she must then focus on the possibility that those demanding entry may have no legitimate business on the premises. This is especially true where, as here, the bedroom is a considerable distance from the door, so that a suddenly awakened individual may not hear the officer's oral announcements identifying the apparent disturbers of a peaceful night as police officers armed with a search warrant. [18] Indeed, the occupant's first instinct  a reasonable one  may be to call 911. Moreover, most citizens are not clad at 1:40 a.m. in manner suitable for opening the door to strangers. If someone is not dressed, sufficiently or at all, dressing takes time. Finally, for most people awakened or startled by loud banging at twenty to two in the morning, the circumstances are not likely to be conducive to rational analysis or to swift or provident decision-making. Moreover, in the present case, the officers observed nothing suggesting that anyone in the apartment was awake. Although Christopher testified that he had the television on, Officer Sloan did not hear it. There were no other lights on. [19] There were no footsteps. Beyond the events that had led to the issuance of the search warrant a week and a half to two weeks earlier, [20] there was no suspicious activity at all.