What was the Supreme Court decision in US v Banks 2003?

Answer 1

US v. Banks, 540 US 31 (2003)

In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court held that 15-20 seconds was a reasonable delay before police executed a forced entry after "knock-and-announce" under the circumstances of the case.

The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's exhaustive list of "totality of situation" factors law enforcement must analyze before an unplanned forced entry can be executed. In its place, they supplied commonsense guidelines to would satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements.

A "knock-and-announce" entry may be treated like a "no-knock" entry when facts known to the police indicate the occupants will either 1) refuse to answer the door; or 2) destroy evidence or take other drastic measures if entry is further delayed.

Banks' argument that he was in the shower when police came to the door and wasn't given a reasonable amount of time to answer the door failed because the circumstances of the shower were unknown (and unknowable) to police. On the other hand, police were executing a warrant for possession of cocaine, which Banks could have had an opportunity to destroy if they waited any longer.

When calculating a reasonable waiting time before entry, the determining factor is what the police can reasonably expect to happen inside the residence based on known facts.

The Court also held that, since most people keep their doors locked, the probability of damage is high and should not be a consideration when determining when to enter without permission.

Quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394 (1997), Justice Souter wrote that the obligation to announce their intention and wait for permission to enter gives way when police "...have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or ... would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence..." When presented to a magistrate, an explanation of these conditions would be sufficient to obtain a no-knock warrant.

He went on to explain "And even when executing a warrant silent about that [whether no-knock was permitted], if circumstances support a reasonable suspicion of exigency [danger calling for action without delay] when the officers arrive at the door, they may go straight in."

Fifteen-twenty seconds may not be a sufficient wait, depending on the size of the residence, unless police have reason to believe waiting allowed time to destroy evidence or create some other emergency.