32
Syllabus
After 15 to 20 seconds without a response, officers could fairly have suspected that Banks would flush away the cocaine if they remained reticent. Each of Banks's counterarguments—that he was in the shower and did not hear the officers, and that it might have taken him longer than 20 seconds to reach the door—rests on a mistake about the relevant enquiry. As to the first argument, the facts known to the police are what count in judging a reasonable waiting time, and there is no indication that they knew that Banks was in the shower and thus unaware of an impending search. As to the second, the crucial fact is not the time it would take Banks to reach the door but the time it would take him to destroy the cocaine. It is not unreasonable to think that someone could get in a position to destroy the drugs within 15 to 20 seconds. Once the exigency had matured, the officers were not bound to learn anything more or wait any longer before entering, even though the entry entailed some harm to the building. Pp. 37-40. (c) This Court's emphasis on totality analysis leads it to reject the Government's position that the need to damage property should not be part of the analysis of whether the entry itself was reasonable and to disapprove of the Ninth Circuit's four-part vetting scheme. Pp. 41-42. 2. The entry here also satisfied 18 U. S. C. § 3109, which permits entry by force "if, after notice of his authority and purpose, [an officer] is refused admittance." Because § 3109 implicates the exceptions to the common law knock-and-announce requirement that inform the Fourth Amendment itself, § 3109 is also subject to an exigent circumstances exception, which qualifies the requirement of refusal after notice, just as it qualifies the obligation to announce in the first place. Pp. 42-43. 282 F. 3d 699, reversed.
Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
David B. Salmons argued the cause pro hac vice for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and John A. Drennan.
Randall J. Roske, by appointment of the Court, 538 U. S. 943, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.*
*Timothy A. Baughman filed a brief for Wayne County, Michigan, as amicus curiae urging reversal.
A brief of amici curiae was filed for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., et al. by Richard Weintraub, Bernard J. Farber, Wayne W. Schmidt, and James P. Manak.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007