/NAHK and uh-NOWNSS ri-KWIRE-muhnt/·procedural term
Also known as:knock-and-announce requirement · knock and announce rule · knock-and-announce rule · knock and announce · knock-and-announce
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Fourth Amendment rule requiring officers executing a search warrant to knock on the door, identify themselves, announce their purpose, and wait a reasonable time before entering a residence. The rule yields to reasonable suspicion that knocking would be dangerous, futile, or would lead to destruction of evidence. A violation does not trigger the exclusionary rule.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Exigent Circumstances After Announcement
Officers approached Kurtis Kaiser's apartment door and knocked while announcing their presence. They immediately heard repeated toilet flushing and cabinet doors slamming inside. Believing evidence was being destroyed, the officers forced entry without a warrant and seized narcotics. The entry was upheld because the sounds supplied an objectively reasonable belief of imminent destruction that arose after the lawful knock and announcement.
No Suppression for Entry Violation
Detectives obtained a warrant to search Kaito Kato's residence for betting records. They cut through a locked gate and broke a patio door without knocking or announcing. Inside they seized phones and ledgers. Kato's motion to suppress was denied because the exclusionary rule does not remedy a knock-and-announce violation during execution of a valid warrant.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Warrant Required for Home Arrest
Officers followed Kiara Kaur to her residence and entered through an unlocked side door without a warrant or announcement to arrest her for check fraud. They had maintained surveillance for weeks and observed no immediate danger or evidence destruction. The entry violated the Fourth Amendment because no exigent circumstances excused the failure to obtain an arrest warrant before entering the home.
Payton v. New York445 U.S. 573 (1980)
Emergency Aid Exception Applied
Officers responded to a report of violence at Kelsey Kirk's home and observed a juvenile striking an adult inside the kitchen. They entered without knocking to stop the ongoing assault. The entry was constitutional because the officers possessed an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside needed immediate assistance.
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart547 U.S. 398 (2006)
Temporary Seizure Pending Warrant
Officers detained Kimberly Knox outside her apartment after observing suspected drug activity. They prevented her from reentering while obtaining a search warrant. The brief seizure was upheld because it was supported by probable cause and lasted only long enough for officers to secure the warrant.
Illinois v. McArthur531 U.S. 326 (2001)
Attenuation After Unlawful Stop
An officer stopped Kieran Kelly without reasonable suspicion and discovered an outstanding warrant during the encounter. The officer then arrested Kelly and found drugs on his person. The evidence was admissible because the discovery of the valid warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the seizure of evidence.
Utah v. Strieff136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), 515
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
Does a knock-and-announce violation require suppression of evidence?+
No. The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock-and-announce requirement during execution of a valid search warrant. The interests protected by the rule, such as privacy and dignity at the threshold, are too attenuated from the later evidentiary use of seized items. Alternative remedies such as civil suits and internal discipline remain available.
Supporting sources
When may officers dispense with the knock-and-announce requirement?+
Officers may enter without knocking when they possess reasonable suspicion that compliance would be dangerous, futile, or would lead to destruction of evidence. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis rather than through a blanket exception for an entire category of cases such as all drug warrants.
Supporting sources
Does hearing sounds of evidence destruction after a knock justify immediate entry?+
Yes. Officers may enter without a warrant to prevent imminent destruction of evidence when they reasonably believe such destruction is occurring, even if the exigency arises after a lawful knock and announcement. The officers must not have created the exigency through an actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation.
Supporting sources
547 U.S. 586 (2006)Criminal Procedure
…rule. The Michigan Supreme Court also affirmed. Held: The exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the knock-and-announce requirement. Majority opinion Opinion of Justice Scalia The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence before entering a dwelling has long been part of…
Criminal Law Constitutional ProtectionsConstitutional protections of accused persons · Arrest, search, and seizure [Fourth Amendment]NEXTGENFoundational