Wilson v. Arkansas
Citation: 514 U.S. 927 (1995)
Facts
Arkansas officers searching Wilson’s home under a warrant failed to knock and announce their presence before entering. Wilson challenged the search, arguing the failure to knock and announce made the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Issue
Does the common-law requirement of knock and announce before entering a dwelling under a search warrant form part of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness inquiry?
Holding
Yes. The common-law knock-and-announce principle is a component of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Officers must generally announce their presence and purpose before entering a home under a search warrant.
Rule
Knock-and-announce requirement: Officers executing a search warrant must, absent exigent circumstances or other exceptions, knock and announce their presence and wait a reasonable time before entering. The requirement is part of the Fourth Amendment’s general reasonableness standard.
Exceptions: Courts recognize unannounced (no-knock) entry is permissible when there is reasonable suspicion that: (1) announcement would be dangerous (armed suspect), (2) announcement would lead to destruction of evidence, or (3) announcement would be futile (United States v. Banks, 2003 — 15-20 seconds was sufficient wait time before entry for a cocaine search).
Significance
- Constitutionalized the knock-and-announce requirement, making violations a Fourth Amendment issue
- Hudson v. Michigan (2006): suppression is NOT the remedy for knock-and-announce violations — the causal connection between the violation and the discovery of evidence is too attenuated; other remedies (civil suits, departmental discipline) are adequate
- Thus, while the knock-and-announce requirement exists, evidence found after a knock-and-announce violation is not automatically suppressed