| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
High Court weighs 'knock and announce' rules used in police searches
From Bill Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Wednesday wrestled with how long police must wait before executing search warrants at a suspect's home, and how much flexibility officers should have in deciding what is long enough. The case is one of six search-and-seizure cases on the court's current docket, with the justices being asked to determine how far the government can go without violating the privacy rights of everyone. At issue is the so-called "knock and announce" law, where police approach a door, announce their presence, then break through in their search for suspects and evidence. Fifteen to 20 seconds has become the general standard used by law enforcement, backed by the courts in various cases. Las Vegas Police, along with the FBI, in July 1998 arrived at a two-bedroom apartment armed with a search warrant, and kicked down a drug suspect's apartment door 15 to 20 seconds after announcing their presence. LaShawn Banks was in the shower when the SWAT team raided the house, and drugs were found, along with guns, and $6,000 in cash. He was arrested, and later was sentenced to 11 years for drug possession with intent to distribute. A federal appeals court said officers should have waited longer before storming the house, since there was no explicit denial of entry by Banks, and no urgent circumstances requiring immediate action. The judges offered no clear standard of how long police needed to wait but said many factors needed to be weighed: "size of residence, location of residence ... time of day, nature of the suspected defense." In court arguments, the Bush administration claimed Banks could have used the extra time to destroy evidence, and said "needless and potentially dangerous delays" could hinder a common police practice. Assistant Solicitor General David Salmons told the court police need flexibility when dealing with drug suspects. "Fifteen to 20 seconds is a substantial delay in this case," he said. "The waiting period here was nowhere near a violation of a constitutional standard."
But Justice David Souter pressed Salmons over whether he was "taking a narrow view of the totality of circumstances." Souter and other justices questioned how long a reasonable person would take to answer a door, and suggested "all sorts of reasons" could prevent a person from answering promptly when police arrived. Salmons responded, "It is not just how long it would take a reasonable person to come to the door, it's also the validity of law enforcement concerns" about their safety and the potential for evidence to be destroyed. Banks' lawyer, Randall Roske, said, "In this case, there was nothing to give police a reason or indication to act hastily." Roske said all citizens benefit when police use restraint, and "not all deference should be given to law enforcement." That brought a sharp response from Chief Justice William Rehnquist. "When it comes to reasonableness, we have to take into account common sense factors." Rehnquist suggested police need not weigh every contingency that might prevent them from entering a residence after 15 to 20 seconds. The waiting period question troubled several justices. "You're saying the Constitution requires waiting longer than 15 to 20 seconds?" asked Justice John Paul Stevens.
"Would you make the same argument if it were 30 seconds?" said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. After being repeatedly pressed to give a time limit, Roske responded, "A wait closer toward a minute would have been more reasonable." SWAT-type raids have become popular anti-crime tools. This and the five other search-and-seizure cases could establish important precedents as the court prepares to decide whether to hear a number of pending legal challenges to the Bush administration's fight against domestic terrorism. "Law enforcement is telling the courts that in a post 9/11 world, the rules have changed," said David Yalof, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut and author of "Pursuit of Justices." "They want more latitude to set up roadblocks, things like that, to prevent terrorism and other violent crimes. And it's unclear how the Supreme Court will respond to that kind of argument." A ruling in the Banks case is expected sometime early next year. It is U.S. v. Banks, case no. 02-0473.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Law enforcement is telling the courts that in a post 9/11 world, the rules have changed. They want more latitude to set up roadblocks, things like that, to prevent terrorism and other violent crimes.
