The REAL POLICE FORUM is a leading community of police officers and law enforcement professionals. The forum includes police chat and restricted areas for police officers only. The ask-a-cop area allows you to ask questions to real police officers and only verified police are allowed to respond. REALPOLICE.com also features law enforcement jobs, news, training materials and expert articles.Darin
12-03-03, 09:57 AM
Here's the story of a guy that sued the police because he was in the shower and didn't hear the police busting in his door to serve a drug warrant. Does this change anything that the police do now? I'm not a cop but it seems like 15-20 seconds is a lot of time that they could flush drugs down the toilet or grab a weapon. Here's the story:
WASHINGTON -- Handing a victory to police in a closely watched Nevada case, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that officers do not have to wait more than 20 seconds before breaking down a drug suspect's door when executing a search warrant.
In a unanimous decision that weighed Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches, the justices determined that officers in North Las Vegas waited long enough before forcing their way into Lashawn Lowell Banks' apartment.
Banks, who was showering at the time, said he did not hear police knocking. He jumped out of the shower when police battered his door and was handcuffed while he was nude.
Justice David Souter, writing for the court, said police waited a "reasonable" time given that they were seeking evidence that could have been destroyed while they were outside. Police ended up seizing 11 ounces of crack cocaine in Banks' apartment.
"We think that after 15 or 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any long," Souter wrote.
"It is imminent disposal, not travel time to the entrance, that governs when the police may reasonably enter," he added.
The decision reverses a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that freed Banks from federal prison last year after judges deemed the police illegally seized the cocaine.
Banks now must finish his 11-year prison term. He had served four years.
"It will mean he leaves his children, a job and a home," said his attorney, Randall Roske. "I'm hoping, given his good behavior, steady employment and ongoing relationship with me, that we can arrange a surrender date after the holidays."
A court appearance for Banks will be scheduled, probably within the next 10 days, Roske said.
The Supreme Court's reasoning was hailed by police groups for upholding the judgment of law enforcers. But it was decried by civil rights groups and defense attorneys, who said it weakened Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
In reviewing the Banks case, the Supreme Court declined to establish a uniform amount of time for law enforcement searches, saying each "knock-and-announce" entry should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
"Police seeking a stolen piano may be able to spend more time to make sure they really need the battering ram," Souter wrote.
Police and attorneys said the court's ruling is unlikely to revolutionize law enforcement practices.
Instead, the court went along with how police now do business, said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
"The court has really recognized that circumstances are going to dictate tactics and you need to rely on the judgment, training and experience of law enforcement," Voegtlin said.
Any other decision would have "handcuffed police by setting an artificial deadline that could be impacted by a number of circumstances," Voegtlin said.
"If they would have said you have to wait at least a minute before you make entry, it would give me pause about how many search warrants I would want to do if there were guns in the house," said Dennis Slocumb, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officer and vice president of the International Union of Police. "It would have had a chilling effect on search warrants."
But criminal defense attorneys warned that police now have a blank check when executing drug warrants.
"It's a little bit scary because it gives police a lot of discretion to knock down your door," said David Oscar Markus, a Miami attorney and Fourth Amendment expert. "People wanted a clear answer. What do you have to do? How long do you have to wait?"
Roske said the court's ruling has "eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to advance the drug war."
"I think very core values of the Fourth Amendment regarding privacy and respect for people's habitations have been lost," Roske said.
In the Banks case, justices also rejected a four-point test crafted by the appeals court in deciding how long police must wait before entering a private home.
"It's setting up a framework that may work well in an academic setting but isn't practical to be used in a law enforcement setting," Voegtlin said. "Law enforcement officers make split decisions every day."
Mark Dobson, a law professor at Nova Southeastern Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the court clearly did not want to reduce search warrants to a formula.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said the ruling "lowers the bar" of the Fourth Amendment.
WASHINGTON -- Handing a victory to police in a closely watched Nevada case, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that officers do not have to wait more than 20 seconds before breaking down a drug suspect's door when executing a search warrant.
In a unanimous decision that weighed Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches, the justices determined that officers in North Las Vegas waited long enough before forcing their way into Lashawn Lowell Banks' apartment.
Banks, who was showering at the time, said he did not hear police knocking. He jumped out of the shower when police battered his door and was handcuffed while he was nude.
Justice David Souter, writing for the court, said police waited a "reasonable" time given that they were seeking evidence that could have been destroyed while they were outside. Police ended up seizing 11 ounces of crack cocaine in Banks' apartment.
"We think that after 15 or 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any long," Souter wrote.
"It is imminent disposal, not travel time to the entrance, that governs when the police may reasonably enter," he added.
The decision reverses a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that freed Banks from federal prison last year after judges deemed the police illegally seized the cocaine.
Banks now must finish his 11-year prison term. He had served four years.
"It will mean he leaves his children, a job and a home," said his attorney, Randall Roske. "I'm hoping, given his good behavior, steady employment and ongoing relationship with me, that we can arrange a surrender date after the holidays."
A court appearance for Banks will be scheduled, probably within the next 10 days, Roske said.
The Supreme Court's reasoning was hailed by police groups for upholding the judgment of law enforcers. But it was decried by civil rights groups and defense attorneys, who said it weakened Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
In reviewing the Banks case, the Supreme Court declined to establish a uniform amount of time for law enforcement searches, saying each "knock-and-announce" entry should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
"Police seeking a stolen piano may be able to spend more time to make sure they really need the battering ram," Souter wrote.
Police and attorneys said the court's ruling is unlikely to revolutionize law enforcement practices.
Instead, the court went along with how police now do business, said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
"The court has really recognized that circumstances are going to dictate tactics and you need to rely on the judgment, training and experience of law enforcement," Voegtlin said.
Any other decision would have "handcuffed police by setting an artificial deadline that could be impacted by a number of circumstances," Voegtlin said.
"If they would have said you have to wait at least a minute before you make entry, it would give me pause about how many search warrants I would want to do if there were guns in the house," said Dennis Slocumb, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officer and vice president of the International Union of Police. "It would have had a chilling effect on search warrants."
But criminal defense attorneys warned that police now have a blank check when executing drug warrants.
"It's a little bit scary because it gives police a lot of discretion to knock down your door," said David Oscar Markus, a Miami attorney and Fourth Amendment expert. "People wanted a clear answer. What do you have to do? How long do you have to wait?"
Roske said the court's ruling has "eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to advance the drug war."
"I think very core values of the Fourth Amendment regarding privacy and respect for people's habitations have been lost," Roske said.
In the Banks case, justices also rejected a four-point test crafted by the appeals court in deciding how long police must wait before entering a private home.
"It's setting up a framework that may work well in an academic setting but isn't practical to be used in a law enforcement setting," Voegtlin said. "Law enforcement officers make split decisions every day."
Mark Dobson, a law professor at Nova Southeastern Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the court clearly did not want to reduce search warrants to a formula.
Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said the ruling "lowers the bar" of the Fourth Amendment.