Court eyes noknock cop entries

WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court seemed to give serious consideration
Monday to letting police enter homes without announcing themselves if they
have court warrants to search for drugs.

In a lively debate over a Madison, Wis., drug raid, the court contemplated
creating a blanket exception to its 1995 ruling that said noknock entries
usually are unlawful.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the court recently ruled that police
officers can, if they deem it necessary for selfprotection, order all
passengers out of vehicles stopped for routine traffic violations.

``Isn't this just as sensible?'' he asked about allowing noknock entries.

But some justices wondered aloud whether such an exception would swallow the
1995 rule. ``Aren't we just gutting what we said a couple of years ago?''
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.

While it was clear the court does not want to endanger officers' lives
unnecessarily, the justices voiced frustration about the lack of statistical
guidance.

``As far as we know, (police) are as apt to be hurt if they don't knock and
announce as if they do,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed noknock searches in all felony drug
cases when it upheld Steiney Richards' drug conviction.

Madison police did not knock on the door to Richards' hotel room before
bursting in on him at 3:40 a.m. on Dec. 31, 1991. Richards, a 19yearold
from Detroit, was arrested after jumping out a window.

Police found 120 packets of cocaine in his hotel room. He eventually was
sentenced to 13 years in prison.

The Wisconsin court ruled that an emergency always exists when police
searches are linked to ``felonious drug delivery'' because drug dealers often
carry weapons and try to destroy the evidence before police can get to it.

``This court gave the state courts an inch and the Wisconsin Supreme Court
took a mile,'' argued Richards' lawyer, David R. Karpe of Madison.

He said the state court ruling ``drained all the blood out of'' the 1995
decision generally disfavoring noknock entries.

But Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle called the state court ruling ``a
commonsense determination in light of the modernday drug trade.''

``Drugdealing is illegal commerce ... marked by danger and violence,'' Doyle
said. ``It is characterized by weapons, a willingness to use weapons ... gang
violence.''

Karpe appeared in trouble when he argued that police should not be allowed to
discard the knockandannounce rule even if they have a good reason to
believe there are weapons on the premises to be searched for drugs.

Police might have to prove also that the people on those premises are
violent, he contended.

``These are violent people with automatic weapons rather than peaceful people
with automatic weapons?'' Justice Antonin Scalia asked in taunting tones.

Karpe's response that ``some people collect automatic weapons'' eventually
drew an ``Are you serious?'' response from Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist.

But Karpe managed to oneup Scalia when the justice challenged his contention
that police worried about destruction of evidence could turn off a home's
water before entering it.

That would still allow one flush of a toilet, Scalia pointed out as the
courtroom audience laughed.

``I'm not arguing for the oneflush rule,'' Karpe replied with a straight
face while the laughter grew louder.

Clinton administration lawyer Miguel Estrada argued in favor of allowing
noknock searches of homes whenever police reasonably believe they will be
endangered or that drugs will be destroyed in the 10 to 20 seconds between
knocking and entering.

Such an approach likely would allow noknock entries in most drug raids.

A decision is expected by July.

The case is Richards vs. Wisconsin, 965955.