http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1203scotus-search03.html#
WASHINGTON - In a major victory for law enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled Tuesday that police acted properly when they bashed down the apartment
door of a drug suspect after waiting 15 to 20 seconds for him to open the door
following their knock and announcement that they wanted in.
In a unanimous ruling, the court said the 15- to 20-second delay was ample because any more time would have given the suspect time to destroy evidence.
The court refused to say that 15 to 20 seconds was the appropriate amount of time to wait in all situations involving search warrants and drug suspects. Instead, the court said that amount of time was correct for the circumstances of this particular arrest.
Justice David Souter, writing for the court, said lower courts should determine the appropriate amount of time that police should wait after knocking on a "case-by-case basis."
The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that police armed with court warrants to search for drugs must knock and announce themselves unless they can show they had reason to believe a suspect would be dangerous or would destroy evidence if alerted to the raid. If no one answers the knock, police may infer that the occupant is simply refusing to answer and can break into the home, the court said, but left unanswered the critical question: How long must police wait after coming to that conclusion?
Souter's opinion on Tuesday answered that question: "After 15 to 20 seconds without a response, officers could fairly have suspected" that the suspect would flush away the cocaine if they remained reticent.
The case began just before 2 p.m. on July 15, 1998, when Lashawn Banks stepped into the shower in the bathroom of his two-bedroom apartment in Las Vegas. As he soaped up, armed men in bulletproof vests and black ski masks took up positions at the front and back doors.
Banks said in testimony at his trial that amid the din of running water in his shower, he did not hear the knock at his front door. Banks also said that he did not hear the announcement that immediately followed the knock: "Police, search warrant."
What Banks did hear 15 to 20 seconds later was the crash of his front door being bashed in by members of a drug task force who had come to take down a suspected crack cocaine dealer. The task force encountered Banks, wet, soapy and naked, a few steps outside his bathroom. The search of Banks' apartment turned up three pistols, a bulletproof vest, a scale, $6,000 in cash, and 11 ounces of crack cocaine.
During his trial, Banks asked the U.S. District Court to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police had violated his Fourth Amendment protections by failing to wait a "reasonable" amount of time before breaking down his door.
The district court refused to exclude the evidence and Banks pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and illegal possession of a firearm. But he reserved his right to challenge the search on appeal.
After being sentenced to serve 11 years in prison, Banks appealed his conviction. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with Banks and ruled that the police acted too hastily in breaking down his door. The court ordered that everything seized in the apartment could not be used as evidence against Banks. During arguments before the Supreme Court in October, Randall Roske, Banks' lawyer, told the court that it should consider how long it would take a normal person to reach the door in determining whether a person is refusing to answer.
Roske also said police should consider the size of the house or apartment and other factors, such as the sound of a shower running.
But the court rejected Roske's arguments, saying the circumstances of the home occupant were irrelevant.