Document: 520 U.S. 385117 S.Ct. 1416137 L.Ed.2d 615 Steiney RICHARDS, Petitioner,v.WISCONSIN. No. 96-5955. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 24, 1997. Decided April 28, Syllabus * In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 927, 115 1914, 131 976, this held that Fourth Amendment incorporates common-law requirement police knock on a dwelling's door and announce their identity purpose before attempting forcible entry, recognized flexible reasonableness should not be read to mandate rigid announcement rule ignores countervailing law enforcement interests, id., at 934, S.Ct., ----, left it lower courts determine circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable. Id., 936, ----. Officers in Madison, Wisconsin obtained warrant search petitioner Richards' hotel room for drugs related paraphernalia, but magistrate refused give advance authorization "no-knock'' entry. The officer who knocked was dressed, identified himself, as maintenance man. Upon opening door, Richards also saw uniformed quickly closed door. officers kicked down caught trying escape, found cash cocaine bathroom. denying motion suppress evidence ground did presence forcing trial court they could gather from strange behavior he might try destroy or escape drugs' disposable nature further justified decision announce. State affirmed, concluding preclude court's pre-Wilson per se are never required when executing felony drug investigation because special today's culture. Held: 1. does permit blanket exception knock-and-announce investigations. While can way presenting threat physical violence where believe would destroyed if notice were given, U.S., fact investigations may frequently present such cannot remove neutral scrutiny reviewing particular case. Creating exceptions based culture surrounding general category criminal presents least two serious concerns. First, contains considerable overgeneralization impermissibly insulate judicial review cases pose risks. Second, creating one can, relatively easily, applied others. If allowed each activity included risk danger destruction evidence, meaningless. confronted with question case has duty whether facts dispensing requirement. A have reasonable suspicion knocking announcing presence, circumstances, dangerous futile, inhibit effective crime. This standard strikes appropriate balance between legitimate concerns issue execution warrants individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries. Cf. Maryland Buie, 494 325, 337, 110 1093, 1099-1100, 108 276. Pp. ____-____. 2. Because establishes officers' into violate Amendment. That had originally means only time requested there insufficient However, enter must evaluated 201 Wis.2d 839, 549 N.W.2d 218, affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. David R. Karpe, WI, appointed Court, petitioner. James E. Doyle, respondent. Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, leave Justice STEVENS 1 976 (1995), we commonlaw entering dwelling At same time, "flexible interests,'' 1918, "to task determining Amendment.'' 1919. 2 case, concluded investigation. so doing, reaffirmed holding rule. We disagree conclusion permits entire activity. But presented support actions affirm judgment court. 3 On December 31, 1991, paraphernalia. culmination uncovered substantial several individuals dealing out rooms Madison. given room, explicitly deleted those portions warrant. App. 7, 9. 4 arrived 3:40 a.m. Officer Pharo, dressed man, led team. With him plainclothes man uniform. Pharo and, responding query inside stated chain still cracked open. Although some dispute what occurred next, acknowledges opened uniform standing behind Pharo. Brief Petitioner 6. He slammed after waiting three seconds, began kicking ramming gain locked room. trial, testified themselves while in. 40. When finally break through window. They hidden plastic bags above bathroom ceiling tiles. 5 sought his suppressed failed prior denied motion, first knew escape. 54. judge emphasized easily searching identify crossed threshold instead seeking 55. appealed 218 (1996). 6 delve events underlying arrest any detail, accepted following facts: " [O]n executed motel defendant felonious crime Possession Intent Deliver Controlled Substance violation Wis. Stat. §161.41(1m) (1991-92). Drugs seized.'' 849, N.W.2d, 220. 7 Assuming these facts, proceeded consider our abandon its Stevens, 181 410, 511 591 (1994), cert. denied, 515 1102, 2245, 132 254 "when warrant, supported probable cause, residence delivery possession intent deliver drugs, necessarily cause exigent exist'' justify Wis.2d, 852, 221. nothing Wilson's acknowledgment element "reasonableness'' prohibit application cases. 854-855, 8 reaching conclusion, reasonable-after considering conduct surveys, newspaper articles, other opinions-to assume all crimes will involve "an extremely high deadly injury well potential disposal occupants police.'' 847-848, 219. Notwithstanding "some cases, undoubtedly decide safety, safety others, dictate announce,'' 863, 225, justifying always Further, reasoned occurs forcibly without minimal, residents ultimately authority refuse principal intrusion situation, concluded, comes issuance manner executed. 864-865, 226. Accordingly, determined do need specific information about dangerousness, possible order dispense cases.1 9 Abrahamson concurred because, her view, 866-868, 227. Specifically, she noted slamming indicated already people officers. Under been useless gesture. 868-869, n. 3, 228, 3. agreeing outcome, took colleagues' affirmation She observed constitutional generally matter court, rather than conducted search, objected creation insulated searches oversight judge. 868-875, 228-230. II 10 "under violence,'' "where reason likely given.'' It indisputable both circumstances.2 resolve justifies case-by-case evaluation executed.3 11 explained necessitated culture, 863-866, 226-227, asserted oral argument "felony convergence violent form commerce weapons drugs.'' Tr. Oral Arg. 26. "culture'' concerns.4 12 overgeneralization. For example, risks preservation every degree. no connection thus unlikely threaten evidence. Or know being searched type location made them impossible quickly. situations, governmental preserving maintaining outweigh intruded upon entry.5 Wisconsin's insulates review. 13 second difficulty permitting criminal-category reasons Armed bank robbers, are, definition, weapons, fruits too much difficulty. considerable-albeit hypothetical-risk Amendment's 14 Thus, warranting Instead, 15 by, allowing standard-as opposed requirement-strikes 276 (1990) (allowing protective sweep house during "a belief articulable area swept harbors posing scene''); Terry Ohio, 392 1, 30, 88 1868, 1884-85, 20 889 (1968) (requiring pat-down search). showing high, make whenever challenged. III 16 reject requirement, conclude agree Abrahamson, show opportunity so.6 17 heard testimony suppression hearing knew, men police. Once reasonably believed were, force immediately drugs. 18 arguing unreasonable, places great emphasis signed proposed permission execute alter decision, entered sufficient, magistrate, Of course, anticipated confront room.7 These actual circumstances-petitioner's apparent recognition combined drugs-justified ultimate authority. 19 although investigations, ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. See Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Several state courts-in predate Wilson-have adopted similar rules, simple home narcotics allows forgo See, e.g., People Lujan, 174 Colo. 554, 484 P.2d 1238, 1241 (1971) (en banc); Henson State, 236 Md. 518, 523-524, 204 A.2d 516, 519-520 (1964); Loucks, 209 772, 777-778 (N.D.1973). De Lago, N.Y.2d 289, 292, 266 N.Y.S.2d 353, 356, 213 N.E.2d 659, 661 (1965) (similar gambling operations), 383 963, 86 1235, 305 (1966). encountered links violence, see, Michigan Summers, 452 692, 702, 101 2587, 2594, 69 340 (1981), likelihood dealers attempt dispose seize them, Ker California, 374 23, 83 1623, 1627, 726 (1963). address directly, instructive case-which involved investigation-we remanded factual development Two briefs suggested adopt just sort propounded here. Americans Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. Amici Curiae 10-11, Wayne County, Michigan, Amicus 39-46, O.T.1994, 5707. respondent argue categorical rule, petitioner, reply brief, arguments put forward briefs, Reply 5707, p. 11, amici supporting against American Civil Liberties Union 29 44. prospect alerted Wilson, choose time. somewhat protections social norms historical moment. "is preserve degree respect persons inviolability property existed provision adopted-even later, less virtuous age become accustomed sorts "reasonable.''' Minnesota Dickerson, 508 366, 380, 113 2130, 2139, 124 334 (1993) (SCALIA, concurring). asserts effectuated minimal itself primary interest generalized safe enforcement. ("occupants' limited brief interval entry''). true intrusive than, warrantless implicated unannounced, unduly minimized. As 930-932, ---------, common comply avoid occasioned inconsequential. Additionally, prepare pointed that, Wisconsin, most late night early morning hours. 24. interlude pull clothes get bed. note attorneys States, Commonwealth Puerto Rico Territory Guam filed taking position rejecting Ohio Curiae. number judges demonstrate ahead context. 725 Ill.Comp.Stat., ch. 725, §5/108-8 (1992); Neb.Rev.Stat. §29-411 (1996); Okla.Stat., Tit. 22, §1228. S.D. Codified Laws §23A-35-9 (1988); Utah Code Ann. §77-23-210 (1995). see Arce, Or.App. 185, 730 1260 (1986) (magistrate abrogate requirement); Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1994) (same). practice magistrates seems entirely sufficient demonstrated But, demonstrate, magistrate's authorize interpreted exercise independent concerning wisdom

Category: 0