Editorial

Knock and Announce

THE FOURTH Amendment protects Americans "in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and
seizures." In order for a search to meet this constitutional test,
there must be probable cause to undertake it, and it must be conducted
in a reasonable fashion. The Supreme Court has said that in most
cases this means that the police should have a warrant and should
knock and announce themselves before they enter a home. There
are three reasons for the knockandannounce policy: to protect an
individual's privacy in his home, to decrease the possibility of
violence by alerting the resident that the police are at his door, not
an unlawful intruder, and to prevent the physical destruction of
property that would occur in a forced entry.

Where police fail to knock and announce before a search, the trial
court must determine whether that omission was reasonable given
the circumstances. In Wisconsin, however, the courts have created
a blanket exemption from the rule in all drug cases, because they
are thought to pose a special danger for the police and because the
evidence sought can be so easily destroyed if a warning is given.
Last week the Supreme Court heard argument in a Wisconsin case
testing that blanket exemption.

There are practical reasons for the knockandannounce rule. A
1970 federal statute authorizing noknock searches was repealed
after only four years because so many terrified citizens, often the
victims of mistakenaddress raids, reacted violently when they did
not know the identity of the intruder. In one Virginia case, a woman
who had previously been burglarized, shot and killed a young
officer who gave no warning when he entered her bedroom in the
middle of the night. In another infamous noknock case involving a
wrong address, Boston police so frightened a 75yearold minister
that he died of a heart attack.

The better rule is to continue to assess cases individually rather than
to create a special, easier rule for a whole category of cases.
Knockandannounce should be preserved not simply for practical
reasons but because it creates a layer of protection for the citizen, a
barrier against the indignity and destruction of a forced entry and a
reinforcement of the privacy protections so revered by the
Founders. In specific cases where the police are thought to be in
great danger, noknock procedures make sense and should be
sanctioned. But not every search, not even every drug search,
should qualify for an exemption to the general rule.

A9 Copyright 1997 The Washington Post Company