Opinion ID: 3013767
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The M otions to Suppress

Text: Prior to trial, Miller and Clark separately moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search of the apartment on two grounds: 1) that the BNI failed to establish probable cause when applying for the search warrant, and 2) that the officers waited an unreasonably short period before forcing entry into the apartment. The District Court 5 held a hearing on these issues, during which Miller’s counsel argued that the probable cause determination had been based entirely on uncorroborated information by a noncredible CI and that the knock-and-announce principle was violated. The District Court denied the motions, ruling that the affidavit submitted with the the application for the warrant supported a finding of probable cause to believe that the narcotics operation on Creighton Street was being supplied from drugs stored in Apartment 72 of Parkside Village. The District Court also ruled that the knock-and-announce principle was not violated, because the manner of the forced entry was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The exigent circumstances that, in the District Court’s opinion, rendered the short wait reasonable included: 1) the agents noticing someone look out the window of the apartment, leading them to conclude that the individuals inside the apartment were aware of their presence, and 2) the agents hearing hurried footsteps inside the apartment that were not moving in the direction of the door, leading them to believe that crack, which is easily destroyed, was possibly being destroyed or disposed.