Court Opinion

ID: 9731586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:50:34.809026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:19.690108
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE WARD, also dissenting: While there are appealing reasons why officers should knock and announce their authority and purpose in executing search warrants, I believe there are even more strongly persuading grounds why this court should not impose the broadly stated obligation the majority announces here. The majority acknowledges there is no constitutional or statutory obligation to do so and I judge that the holding today will only increase uncertainty in the already nebulous area of search and seizure. Many new questions now arise to vex law enforcement officers, the bar and the courts. To whom must notice be given in order to satisfy a notice requirement? May officers assume that notice to any person who opens the door will be sufficient? Can the knock and the notice be only at the outer door of the house or apartment or must a knock and announcement be made on the inner door or doors? What do officers do in respect to a door that is already open? (Professor LaFave observes that “whether passage through an open door is the type of entry which ordinarily requires prior announcement is a matter which continues to divide the courts.” 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure 126-27 (1978).) The majority says that if police have ground to reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed, there may be no necessity to knock and announce. It is said that “[p] articular reasons might include reliable and specific information that narcotics are always kept near a toilet” (78 Ill. 2d at 520). This statement will obviously cause questions of interpretation for officers and courts. The majority states, too, that there may be an entry without notice to execute a search warrant under certain circumstances when the police have knowledge of weapons on the premises to be searched. It is said, however, that failure of officers to announce will be excused “only where the officers reasonably believe the weapon will be used against them if they proceed with the ordinary announcements” (78 Ill. 2d at 520). This is calling upon officers whose lives may be at stake to make nice judgments as to whether decisions that their lives are imperiled are reasonable. I consider, on balance, that the unfavorable effects of the holding today will outweigh its benefits. The bar, enforcement officers and courts will be vexed by added problems in a confused area.