Court Opinion

ID: 989304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:05:14.740851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:50.656133
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 95-5627
SHAWN JEROME ALLEN, a/k/a Rashon
Allen, a/k/a Allen Rashon,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CR-94-135)

Submitted: April 16, 1996

Decided: May 23, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Melvin LeRoye Hill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Joseph W.H. Mott, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant, Shawn Allen, appeals the district court's order
denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a drug raid
on a house occupied by Allen. Allen argues that the recovered evi-
dence should have been excluded because the underlying search vio-
lated the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. 1 According to
Allen, all the evidence obtained in the search should have been sup-
pressed because the police failed to announce the purpose of their
visit and wait for refusal of admittance before they entered the house.

We disagree. It is well established that non-compliance with
"knock and announce" requirements may be excused where exigent
circumstances render strict compliance imprudent. 2 Here, the Govern-
ment provided evidence that the officers needed to act quickly to pro-
tect themselves from possible harm. The officers had a report from a
confidential informant that firearms were recently observed inside the
home, although not during the latest visit. A check of Allen's criminal
history revealed convictions for several robberies, criminal possession
of a weapon, assault, resisting arrest, rape, and several drug offenses.
Given Allen's extensive violent criminal history the officers could
reasonably infer that Allen might attempt to use the observed firearms
against the officers if given the opportunity. Under the circumstances
of this case,3 particularly Allen's extensive record for violence, the
district court did not clearly err in finding it reasonable for the police
to believe that they would be in danger unless they executed a "no-
knock" search warrant.4

Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in denying
the Appellant's motion to suppress. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
_________________________________________________________________
1 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1988) (codification of "knock and announce" rule).
2 United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 882 (4th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 63 U.S.L.W. 3563 (U.S. Jan. 23, 1995) (No. 94-6500).
3 Id.
4 United States v. Bernard, 757 F.2d 1439, 1443 (4th Cir. 1985).

                     2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

                    3