Wilson v. Arkansas
(O)ur effort to give content to this term may be guided by the meaning ascribed to it by the Framers of the Amendment. An examination of the common law of search and seizure leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of a search of a dwelling may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.
We simply hold that although a search or seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective if police officers enter without prior announcement, law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry.Knocking is not a Constitutional requirement and Thomas basically says here that if the police have a good reason for no-knocking, they can do it.Respondent contends that the judgment below should be affirmed because the unannounced entry in this case was justified for two reasons. First, respondent argues that police officers reasonably believed that a prior announcement would have placed them in peril, given their knowledge that petitioner had threatened a government informant with a semiautomatic weapon and that Mr. Jacobs had previously been convicted of arson and firebombing. Second, respondent suggests that prior announcement would have produced an unreasonable risk that petitioner would destroy easily disposable narcotics evidence.
These considerations may well provide the necessary justification for the unannounced entry in this case. Because the Arkansas Supreme Court did not address their sufficiency, however, we remand to allow the state courts to make any necessary findings of fact and to make the determination of reasonableness in the first instance.
Now I'm not a lawyer (law school is too easy), but it seems to me that the petitioner's unlocked screen door in WvA indicates a lack of expectation of privacy or security in one's papers.
I don't have a problem with that. That's a law enforcement procedure. Or it could be an actual law passed by the state legislature. I just resent the USSC making it a constitutional requirement binding on the states.
Plus, it's a lame argument to say that the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution considers knocking on the door to be an actual part of the search itself. Wouldn't it also be "reasonable" that the cops be in uniform to assure identification? That they use a marked patrol car? That they provide a phone number allowing the resident to verify the warrant with the judge prior to entry? Sounds reasonable to me. Should all these decisions be made by the U.S. Supreme Court?