Content area
Full text
The Supreme Court recently held that the "Fourth Amendment does not hold officers to a higher standard when a `no-knock' entry results in the destruction of property."1 In United States v. Ramirez, federal agents obtained a "no-knock" warrant to enter and search a home where they had reason to believe, based on a statement from a reliable confidential informant, that they would find Alan Shelby, a dangerous escaped prisoner.2 Upon gathering outside of the house, the "officers announced over a loud speaker system that they had a search warrant."3 At the same time, an officer "broke a single window in respondent's garage and pointed a gun through the opening, hoping thereby to dissuade [the] occupants from rushing to the weapons stash the informant had told them was in the garage."4 Respondent Ramirez, awakened by the noise and under the impression that his home was being burglarized, grabbed a pistol and fired it into the ceiling of the garage.5 When the police identified themselves, Ramirez, a convicted felon, surrendered himself and admitted that he had fired the pistol and that he was the owner of both the weapon fired and another gun found on the premises.6 Ramirez was indicted on federal charges of being a felon in possession of firearms.7
At trial, Ramirez sought to suppress the evidence regarding the weapons possession on the basis that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. (sec)3109.8 The District Court granted the motion based on the belief that there were "`insufficient exigent circumstances' to justify [the officers'] destruction of property in executing the warrant."9 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.10
The Supreme Court did not agree that the Fourth Amendment "holds officers to a higher standard when a no-knock entry results in the destruction of property."11 Reviewing their decisions in Wilson v. Arkansas12 and Richards v Wisconsin,13 the Court stated that "such an entry's lawfulness does not depend on whether property is damaged in the course of the entry."14 Quoting Richards, the Court explained that "a no-knock entry is justified if police have a "reasonable suspicion' that knocking and announcing their presence before entering would `be dangerous or futile, or . . . inhibit the effective investigation of the crime."15 Expanding upon the analysis in...