Sharlene Wilson v. Arkansas
514 US __, 131 L Ed 2d 976, 115 S Ct __

Facts

Plaintiff Sharlene Wilson purchased narcotics from an informant acting under the authority of the Arkansas State Police. The informant and plaintiff arranged to meet at a local store to buy more narcotics. At this meeting, plaintiff produced a weapon and threatened to kill the informant if he was a police officer. Police officers obtained a warrant to arrest petitioner and search the premises.

Police found the front main door of the home open, identified themselves as police officers, entered the residence, and stated that they had a warrant. Police discovered a variety of narcotics and related paraphernalia. Plaintiff was charged with possession and distribution of narcotics.

Plaintiff moved the evidence be suppressed on the grounds that the search was invalid since the officers failed to "knock and announce" their presence. Motion was denied and plaintiff was convicted. State Supreme Court affirmed.

Questions

Does the common law "knock and announce" policy form a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard?

Holding

The common law "knock and announce" policy is part of the Fourth Amendments reasonableness standard.

The "knock and announce" policy is not, however, an inflexible rule.

Reasoning

Throughout the history of common law in both America and England, from which American common law was based, it is clear that the reasonableness of a search depended, in part, on whether the law enforcement officials announced their presence and authority prior to entering. The court felt confident that the framers thought the method of an officers entry into a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness.

However, the common law also indicates that there are a variety of situations in which it is reasonable to enter the premises without knocking and announcing. The court cited situations in which such announcements would place the officers in danger.