Document: 540 U.S. 31 UNITED STATESv.BANKS No. 02-473. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 15, 2003. Decided December 2, When federal and local law enforcement officers went to respondent Banks's apartment execute a warrant search for cocaine, they called out "police warrant" rapped on the front door hard enough be heard by at back door, waited 15 20 seconds with no response, then broke open door. Banks was in shower testified that he nothing until crash The District denied his motion suppress drugs weapons found during search, rejecting argument an unreasonably short time before forcing entry violation both Fourth Amendment 18 U. S. C. § 3109. pleaded guilty, but reserved right challenge appeal. In reversing ordering evidence suppressed, Ninth Circuit found, using four-part scheme vetting knock-and-announce entries, instant had exigent circumstances, making forced destruction property permissible only if there explicit refusal admittance or lapse greater than one here. Held: 1. officers' 15-to-20-second wait forcible satisfied Amendment. Pp. 35-43. (a) standards bearing whether can legitimately enter after knocking are same as those requiring dispensing knock announce altogether. This has fleshed notion reasonable execution case-by-case basis, pointed factual considerations unusual, albeit not dispositive, significance. obligation entering gives way when have grounds expect futility suspect exigency, such destruction, will arise instantly upon knocking. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 385, 394. Since most people keep their doors locked, no-knock normally do some damage, fact too common require heightened justification suspicion exigency already justifies unwarned entry. States Ramirez, 523 65, 70-71. 35-37. (b) case turns revealed circumstances known knocked announced, which Government contends risk losing easily disposable evidence. After without could fairly suspected would flush away cocaine remained reticent. Each counterarguments—that did hear officers, it might taken him longer reach door—rests mistake about relevant enquiry. As first argument, facts police what count judging waiting time, is indication knew thus unaware impending search. second, crucial take destroy cocaine. It unreasonable think someone get position within seconds. Once matured, were bound learn anything more any entering, even though entailed harm building. 37-40. (c) Court's emphasis totality analysis leads reject Government's need damage should part itself disapprove Circuit's scheme. 41-42. 2. here also §3109, permits force "if, notice authority purpose, [an officer] refused admittance." Because §3109 implicates exceptions requirement inform itself, subject exception, qualifies notice, just place. 42-43. 282 F. 3d 699, reversed. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT David B. Salmons argued cause pro hac vice With brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, John A. Drennan. Randall J. Roske, appointment Court, 538 943, filed respondent.* JUSTICE SOUTER 1 Officers executing announced authority. question §3109. We hold did. 2 * information selling home, North Las Vegas Police Department Federal Bureau Investigation agents got two-bedroom apartment. soon arrived there, o'clock Wednesday afternoon, posted Brief 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). There anyone answer, battering ram. brought dripping confront police. produced weapons, crack other drug dealing. response firearms charges, moved evidence, arguing entry, so violated 3109.1 motion, reserving 4 A divided panel reversed ordered suppression found. 699 (2002). assessing reasonableness warrant, majority set nonexhaustive list "factors officer reasonably consider" deciding premises identified announcing presence receiving express acknowledgment: 5 "(a) size residence; location relation main living sleeping areas (d) day; (e) nature offense; (f) demonstrating suspect's guilt; (g) prior convictions and, any, type offense convicted; (h) observations triggering senses lead believe immediate necessary." Id., 704. 6 defined four categories intrusion announcement, saying classification "aids resolution essential made herein under circumstances": 7 "(1) entries exist non-forcible possible, permitting simultaneously shortly announcement; (2) required, necessitating specific inferences exigency; (3) significant amount time; (4) mandating substantial time." Ibid. 8 put action last category, understanding destroyed hearing suggest admit sound traveled through small held delay "[in]sufficient ... satisfy constitutional safeguards." 705. 9 Judge Fisher dissented, ought come based very stressed: apartment, loud dealing day. thought support inference been constructively denied. 710. 10 granted certiorari consider how go applying standard length must permission intent felony case. 537 1187 (2003). now reverse. II 11 never dispute these obliged intentions concededly honored. Despite this agreement, we start word since criteria bear 12 says formalities exercising warrant's authorization, speaking manner searching well legitimacy all simply terms "secure... against searches seizures." Although therefore out, done case, largely avoiding protocols searches. Instead, treated function cases various template likely produce sounder results examining given case; invent giving shrift details turn important instance, inflating marginal ones. See, e. g., Ohio Robinette, 519 33, 39 (1996) ("[W]e consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing fact-specific inquiry"); Ker California, 374 23, 33 (1963) (reasonableness susceptible Procrustean application); Go-Bart Importing Co. States, 344, 357 (1931) (no formula determining reasonableness; each its own circumstances). have, however, 13 Wilson Arkansas, 514 927 (1995), principle focus enquiry; subsequently decided although generally requires closed premises, "have presence, particular dangerous futile, inhibit effective investigation crime by, example, allowing evidence," 394 (1997). applicant another exists knocking, magistrate judge acting Constitution authorize "no-knock" entry.2 And silent that, arrive may straight in. 394, 396, n. 7. 14 circumstance accordingly far necessary entrance detail demands unannounced lifting latch. 70-71 (1998). Either way, circumstances.3 III Like significance substantive difference between two situations goes anticipated danger calling delay.4 Whereas Ramirez Magistrate advance customary warning raise wanted felon elude capture pose threat see id., 68, claims arose announcing. justifying argue started clock running toward moment apprehension prompted knowing coming While forcibly arrival, argues equally disposal ripened. 16 does not, course, deny develop period beginning admitted, issue comes down imminent loss way. Though agree Fisher's dissenting call close one, 3d, 707, gone reticent longer. Courts Appeals indeed, routinely similar times including (and courts shorter ones enough).5 17 look counterarguments shows why reached sensible results, reasons rests enquiry: actually point, true claim headed shower, say cf., Graham Connor, 490 386, 396 (1989) ("The `reasonableness' use judged from perspective scene, rather 20/20 vision hindsight"), otherwise tried frustrate. ignores justified prompt True, justify timing claiming failure them suggested let in, least occupant door,6 vary establishment, perhaps five motel room several minutes move townhouse. enter, actions claimed. On record here, matters opportunity rid prudent dealer near commode kitchen sink. include arrival day, inside probably up around, sufficiency getting bathroom flushing drain. That is, because pusher point putting beyond reach, disposal, travel entrance, governs enter; usually interior dwelling, hall, reason peg reliable basis proprietor mansion resident bungalow, like Banks's. seem unrealistic guess quarters 19 going trumps resident's interest S., 70-71, treat post-knock differently counterpart itself. IV Our necessarily rejects positions side cannot read breadth espouses, "reflect[ing] general order effectuate reasonable." 18; Reply 4. At law, rule traditionally "justified belief announcement avoid `the breaking house . great inconvenience ensue.'" Wilson, 935-936 (quoting Semayne's Case, Rep. 91a, 91b, 77 Eng. 194, 196 (K. 1603)). One announce, then, give person chance save why, frustration all, make certain answer definite turning into sub-rules inclined do. Suffice course good patience open. seeking stolen piano able spend sure really 21 side, Appeals's entries. To begin with, demand enhanced damaged warranted bad (a Circuit), rejected attempt subdivide accepting "mild exigency" "more reasonable. 69-71 cite Ramirez. 22 Nor appeals court Arvizu, 534 266 (2002) (again, Circuit). There, recently disapproved framework determinations attempted reduce described "troubling uncertainty" analysis, "describ[ing] clearly delimit[ing]" officer's consideration factors. 272, 275 Here, overlay categorical threatens distort "totality circumstances" principle, replacing stress revealing resort pigeonholes. 274 Attention rocks pianos tells lot chances respective time. Instructions couched "significant time," "an 704, tell little. V 23 Last, result explained statute's "`requirement [as] codif[ying] tradition embedded Anglo-American law,'" 72 Miller 301, 313 (1958)); Sabbath 391 585, 591, (1968), 3109 73. upshot ibid., Absent receive actual infer one. But this, where entered ripened, Amendment, admittance. 24 judgment 25 So ordered. Notes: Timothy Baughman Wayne County, Michigan, amicus curiae urging reversal. ofamici Americans Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. Richard Weintraub, Bernard Farber, W. Schmidt, James P. Manak. statute provides: "The break outer inner window house, therein, if, liberate himself aiding warrant." Some judges warrants, not. See,e. (1997) (collecting state statutes cases). stated inRichards applies futility. futility, speak alone. 385 (1997), our addressing role involved felony, different context governed minor insufficient dwelling warrantless arrest. See Welsh 466 740 (1984). applied considering gravity exist. e.g., Aquino, 836 2d 1268, 1271-1273 (CA10 1988); Clement, 854 1116, 1120 (CA8 1988) (per curiam). intimate cases. view existence evaluating offense. Several explicitly account factor Goodson, 165 610, 612, 614 1999) (holding 20-second one-story ranch reasonable); Spikes, 158 913, 925-927 (CA6 1998) 15-to-30-second midmorning Spriggs, 996 320, 322-323 (CADC 1993) 15-second audible 7:45 a.m. weekday Garcia, 983 1160, 1168 (CA1 10-second Jones, 133 358, 361-362 (CA5 curiam) (relying specifically concept holding reasonable). Chavez-Miranda, 306 973, 981-982, (CA9 2002) ("Banks appears departure decisions.... [W]e second sounds announcement"); Jenkins, 175 1208, 1215 14-to-20-second Markling, 1309, 1318-1319 (CA7 7-second acted tip dispose drugs). terms. "small," 704 2002), man walk today's

Category: 0