Richards v. Wisconsin
Citation: 520 U.S. 385 (1997)
Facts
Wisconsin had a blanket rule permitting no-knock entry in all drug cases. Officers executed a no-knock warrant at Richards’s hotel room and found drugs. Richards challenged the categorical rule.
Issue
May states adopt a blanket rule permitting no-knock entry in all felony drug investigations?
Holding
No. States may not create a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for drug cases. The exception requires a case-by-case determination of whether, under the circumstances, officers have reasonable suspicion that announcing their presence would be dangerous, result in destruction of evidence, or be futile.
Rule
Case-by-case knock-and-announce exception: No-knock entry is permissible when officers have reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) that: (1) announcement would be dangerous (armed suspects), (2) announcement would lead to destruction of evidence, or (3) announcement would be futile. This determination must be made on the facts of each case — categorical exceptions for drug cases (or any crime category) are impermissible.
Significance
- Prohibits categorical no-knock rules for any category of crime
- Requires individualized reasonable suspicion for each no-knock entry
- But the bar is not high — officers may develop reasonable suspicion based on the general nature of drug crimes and the likelihood of evidence destruction; Richards did not make it hard to obtain no-knock authorization
- Hudson v. Michigan (2006) eliminated suppression as a remedy for knock-and-announce violations, substantially reducing Richards’s practical impact