NCJ Number
172540
Journal
Crime to Court Dated: (December 1997) Pages: complete issue
Date Published
1997
Length
24 pages
Annotation
Intended for police training, this report summarizes the facts and reasoning related to an appellate court decision regarding situations in which police officers are required to knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry.
Abstract
The case of Kornegay v. Cottingham involved a forcible no-knock entry into a residence by a crisis management team of police officers in Wilmington, Del. The officers had obtained a search warrant for a residence in Wilmington, but later learned that the warrant was for the wrong house. The homeowner sued the officers for an illegal search. The officers defended on the grounds of qualified immunity. The appellate court's reasoning established that the reasonableness of a police officer's conduct is gauged on the information known to the officer at the time the officer commits the questioned acts. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the knock-and-announce rule is based on a constitutional right and is not to be taken lightly. Police officers are not required to knock and announce when they have reasons to suspect that the person sought is aware of the officers' presence and identity, when knock and announce might lend to the individual's escape, when adherence to the rule might place the officers in danger, or when it might lead to destruction of evidence. However, police officers must be able to state facts in the case that support their decision. Questions and answers for the reader; photographs; and discussion of the Missing and Exploited Children Comprehensive Action Program, a training and technical assistance program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention