NOKNOCK RAID ARGUMENTS HEARD
Copyright (c) 1997, The Des Moines Register, Inc.

Boston Globe

Washington, D.C. A lawyer for a Wisconsin drug dealer
told the Supreme Court Monday that his state's blanket
endorsement of noknock police raids in felony drug cases
violates the Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Wisconsin's attorney
general, however, said that noknock searches were an
indispensable tactic in the war on drugs, where the
moments police spend knocking at a door can be used by drug
dealers to grab weapons or destroy evidence.

The court appeared to side with the drug dealer Monday,
as several justices showed a reluctance to endorse
Wisconsin's blanket policy, suggesting instead that police
should seek a casebycase approval from a local judge or
magistrate.

Justice David Souter warned that if the court approved a
blanket noknock policy in drug cases, it would lead law
enforcement officials to ask for similar authority in other
crimes.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted the court had
ruled in an Arkansas case in 1995 that the Fourth Amendment
generally requires police to first announce and identify
themselves when carrying out a search warrant.

If the court allows an exception in all felony drug
cases, Ginsburg asked Wisconsin Attorney General James
Doyle, "aren't we just gutting what we said a couple of
years ago?" The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states
that "the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

The case, Richards v. Wisconsin, dates back to 1991,
when Steiney Richards was arrested in a Madison, Wis.,
motel room for possession of cocaine by police who forced
their way in without knocking.