Brief Fact Summary. Law enforcement officials arrived at the defendant’s home, announced their presence and their warrant, knocked loudly, waited, and then broke open the door.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[W]here the officers knocked and announced their presence, and forcibly entered after a reasonable suspicion of exigency had ripened, their entry satisfied Section:3109 as well as the Fourth Amendment, even without refusal of admittance.”
Issue. “[W]hether their 15-to-20-second wait before a forcible entry satisfied the Fourth Amendment and 18 U. S. C. Section:3109.”
Held. Yes. The court noted that the case turned on “the significance of exigency revealed by circumstances known to the officers, for the only substantive difference between the two situations goes to the time at which the officers reasonably anticipated some danger calling for action without delay.” Specifically at issue was whether it was reasonable for the officers “to suspect imminent loss of evidence” in the period prior to their forced entry. The court countered the defendant’s arguments that the fact that the defendant was in the shower, and that 15-20 seconds was insufficient for the defendant to reach the front door were inconsequential to “the very risk that justified prompt entry.” The court also held 18 U.S.C. Section:3109 is subject to the same exigency exceptions that the Fourth Amendment is.
That is, when circumstances are exigent because a pusher may be near the point of putting his drugs beyond reach, it is imminent disposal, not travel time to the entrance, that governs when the police may reasonably enter; since the bathroom and kitchen are usually in the interior of a dwelling, not the front hall, there is no reason generally to peg the travel time to the location of the door, and no reliable basis for giving the proprietor of a mansion a longer wait than the resident of a bungalow, or an apartment like Banks's.View Full Point of Law