skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 204544 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Every Second Counts to the U.S. Supreme Court
Journal: Law and Order  Volume:52  Issue:1  Dated:January 2004  Pages:22,24
Author(s): Joan Hopper
Date Published: January 2004
Page Count: 2
Sponsoring Agency: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This document discusses the amount of time a police officer must wait before entering a dwelling after knocking and announcing.
Abstract: In October 2003, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in the landmark knock and announce case, United States v. Banks, 02-473 (Dec. 2, 2003). The Court determined that 15 to 20 seconds is a sufficient amount of time for law enforcement officers to wait before forcibly entering a dwelling to execute a search warrant. The Court’s ruling challenged some previously recommended guidelines for officers to use when determining whether to enter a dwelling after knocking and announcing. In Banks, law enforcement officers had correctly presumed that the suspect’s lack of a response constituted a refusal of entry, when he claimed he was in the shower and did not hear the knock and announce. The police argued that as soon as they declared their presence to Banks, he could have easily gotten rid of the evidence, in this case cocaine. The size of a dwelling is still a critical piece of information for police, but the Court said that this should not figure in the calculation of the appropriate wait time when the evidence sought could be easily destroyed. Other factors for officers to consider when determining a reasonable wait time are location of the residence, location of the officers in relation to the main living or sleeping areas of the residence, time of day, nature of the suspected offense, evidence demonstrating a suspect’s guilt, and suspect’s prior convictions. The Supreme Court rejected this piecemeal approach, stating that no template can produce sounder results than examining the totality of the circumstances. There are three other fourth amendment cases scheduled to be decided: (1) whether officers can arrest the owner of a vehicle after all occupants denied ownership of drugs and cash inside the vehicle; (2) whether police violate search and seizure rights when they execute an erroneous warrant; and (3) whether police can search a vehicle after arresting a person not in the vehicle at the time.
Main Term(s): Right of privacy; US/foreign comparisons
Index Term(s): Arrest procedures; Consent search; Search and seizure; Search and seizure laws; Search warrants; Vehicle searches
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.