Court Opinion

ID: 9659433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:45:22.353948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:08.074042
License: Public Domain

DAVID B. GAULTNEY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The showing necessary to justify a no-knock entry is not high. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1422, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). In Richards, the Supreme Court described the required showing as follows:
In order to justify a “no-knock” entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.
Id., 520 U.S. at 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416. Detective Cash testified to various dangers associated with methamphetamine production: explosions, violence, weapons, trip wires, and bombs. The particular circumstances here included specific information from an informant that Ballard would be manufacturing, or “cooking,” methamphetamine at the time of the raid, and the house was “sealed.” Detective Cash explained that when these two circumstances are present, “there’s a good chance of an explosion” from a gunshot or other spark. Detective Cash also explained that a no-knock entry prevents a methamphetamine manufacturer from arming himself before he can be arrested. The State had evidence defendant had a gun; the State was not required to assume the gun was in disrepair. A fire truck was present in the event of an explosion, and some of the *385officers had on protective chemical suits. Under the specific circumstances presented, the no-knock entry was justified by a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous or would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime in progress — the manufacture of methamphetamine. The trial court’s decision should not be reversed.