Legal Document

523 U.S. 65118 S.Ct. 992140 L.Ed.2d 191 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Hernan RAMIREZ. No. 96-1469. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 13, 1998. Decided March 4, Syllabus* Based on a reliable confidential informant's statement that he had seen person believed to be Alan Shelby, dangerous escaped prisoner, at respondent's home, and federal agent's subsequent observation man resembling Shelby outside Government obtained "no-knock'' warrant enter search home. Having gathered in early morning hours execute warrant, officers announced over loud speaker system they warrant. Simultaneously, broke single window garage pointed gun through opening, hoping thereby dissuade occupants from rushing weapons stash informant told them was garage. Awakened by noise fearful his house being burglarized, respondent grabbed pistol fired it into ceiling. When shouted "police,'' surrendered taken custody. After admitted weapon, owned both another house, convicted felon, indicted charges felon possession firearms. The District granted motion suppress evidence regarding possession, ruling violated Fourth Amendment 18 U.S.C. §3109 because there were "insufficient exigent circumstances'' justify their destruction property executing Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: 1.The does not hold higher standard when entry results property. It is obvious holdings Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 927, 934, 936, 115 1914, 1918, 1919, 131 976, Richards Wisconsin, 520 ----, 117 1416, 137 615, such an entry's lawfulness depend whether damaged course entry. Under Richards, no-knock justified if police have "reasonable suspicion'' knocking announcing presence before entering would "be or futile, . inhibit effective investigation crime.'' Id., 1417. Whether reasonable suspicion exists must destroy order enter. This say speak manner Such execution governed general touchstone reasonableness applies all analysis. See Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 108-109, 98 330, 332-33, 54 331. Excessive unnecessary during may violate Amendment, even though itself lawful fruits subject suppression. Applying these principles facts hand demonstrates no violation occurred. certainly might themselves others, officer confirmed this possibility, violent past possible access large supply vowed "would do time.'' Moreover, which accomplished clearly reasonable, but discourage anyone else, there. Pp. ___-___. 2.The did §3109, provides: "The break open any if, after notice authority purpose, refused admittance .'' Contrary contention, statute specify only circumstances under damage By its terms prohibits nothing, merely authorizes certain instances. Even accepting arguendo implicitly forbids some what expressly permit, help respondent. In Miller States, 357 301, 313, 78 1190, 1197-98, 2 1332, Sabbath 391 585, 591, n. 8, 88 1755, 1759, 20 828, noted §3109's prior requirement codified common-law tradition. now makes clear also exceptions Because case, common law informs serve as guideposts construing statute. Wilson, concluded announcement principle element inquiry, never stated inflexible rule requiring circumstances. U.S., S.Ct., 1917-18. articulated test used determine particular 1419. Thus, includes exception exception's applicability given instance measured same Richards. met here. 91 F.3d 1297, reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion for unanimous Court. David C. Frederick, Washington, DC, petitioner. Michael R. Levine, Portland, OR, Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 1421, 615 (1997), we held so-called entries are decide holds than We not. prisoner serving concurrent state sentences Oregon State prison system. On November 1, 1994 Tillamook County Sheriff's Office took temporary custody expecting transport him Courthouse, where scheduled testify. way slipped handcuffs, knocked deputy sheriff, 3 first time attempted escape. 1991 struck officer, kicked out jail door, assaulted woman, stole her vehicle, ram vehicle. Another escape using rope made torn bedsheets. He reported threats kill witnesses officers, tortured people with hammer, said "not App. Pet. Cert. 38a. thought supplies weapons. 4 Shortly learning Shelby's escape, authorities sent press release, seeking information lead recapture. 3, ATF Agent George Kim previous day Hernan Ramirez's home Boring, Oregon. then drove area near observed working who resembled Shelby. 5 information, Deputy Marshal sought received granting permission Around time, guns drugs hidden 5, approximately 45 set up portable began 6 Respondent family asleep inside activity began. noise, burglarized. ran utility closet, pistol, ceiling back "police.'' At point realized enforcement trying living room, threw away, himself onto floor. thereafter, he, wife, child left waived Miranda rights, felon. Officers soon return retrieve two guns. found. 7 subsequently §922(g)(1). weapons, officer's 34a. 8 Appeals 1297 (1996). precedent, court while "mild exigency'' sufficient can without property, ""more specific inferences exigency necessary''' destroyed. 1301. heightened been case. certiorari reverse. 521 2478, 138 987 (1997). 9 recent cases considered extent implicate protections Amendment. 976 (1995), reviewed Arkansas Court's holding knock announce played role rejected conclusion, instead "in unannounced unreasonable Amendment.'' 1918. careful note, however, rigid instances, "to lower courts task determining 1919. 10 (1997),1 Wisconsin warrants felony drug investigations required presence. blanket overly broad " [i]n "no-knock' entry, presence, circumstances, crime by, example, allowing evidence.'' 1421. 11 Neither explicitly addressed question depends holdings, dangerous, destructive purposes investigation. 12 speaks governs analysis, see 331 (1977)(per curiam), method 13 hand, conclude A notified possibility. escapee reportedly others.2 14 As accomplished, here They so wished other occupant kept Their conduct violation.3 15 argues, suppression appropriate §3109. statutory argument fares better. Section 3109 16 outer inner door part anything therein, necessary liberate aiding warrant.'' 17 contends specifies therefore property-damaging entries. But nothing. 1332 (1958) "requirement forcing codif[ied] tradition embedded Anglo-American law.'' repeated 828 (1968)(referring "codification'' law). neither cases, "no claim existence excusing compliance'' accordingly us. Miller, 309, 1196. make claim, record reveal substantial basis failure agents authority'' question. [e]xceptions constitutional relating recognized little reason why those limited apply since existed law, codification.'' 8. 19 case squarely presented. remove whatever doubt remain codifies requirement. If area, turn our decisions "an inquiry Amendment,'' "was circumstances.'' violated. reverse judgment remand further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 ordered. * syllabus constitutes has prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. should came down issued consequence [I]n probable cause concern ourselves believe '' Ker California, 374 23, 40-41, 12, 83 1623, 1634, 726 (1963) (opinion Clark, J.) (emphasis original). concluding excluded evidence. violation, need whether, causal relationship between breaking discovery Cf. Nix Williams, 467 431, 104 2501, 81 377 (1984); Wong Sun 371 471, 407, 441 (1963).

Classification Label: 0