Talk:Knock-and-announce

Untitled
What happens if a cop doesn't comply with the knock and announce requirement? Is the search deemed illegal and the evidence obtained excluded, or does the police department simply have to pay damages? --Whitenoise101 05:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The former - good point! bd2412  T 16:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Search warrants
What if a judge has issued a search warrant, which the police officers carry with them to the premises to be searched? 

Is this article primarily about "no knock" warrants, or about warrantless searches, or what? --Uncle Ed 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is about a rule that requires police officers to knock and announce their identity, then usually wait a bit before forcibly entering (though see Hudson v. Michigan), before conducting a search at a residence. The rule applies even if they have obtained a warrant. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 22:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

arrest
Can a police officer subdue a person at their home without first stating their business without warrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.99.107 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?
Apparently I'm supposed to A) fix it, and B) talk about it here on the discussion page. So why is there a big tag complaining about it if no one is complaining about it here on the discussion page? J.M. Archer (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two things to note here:


 * 1. This is a common-law concept, and thus not particularly relevant to countries in a civil law tradition, or to other legal traditions.  Since that's mentioned in the first sentence, I think that's very appropriately signposted and no further discussion of non-common-law countries is necessary (though if some knowledgeable editor wanted to add a blurb and links to any analogous provisions in other legal systems, that would be cool too).


 * 2. However, since the article claims that knock-and-announce is an "ancient" common law tradition, presumably it must either exist or have been refuted/abandoned in other common law countries besides the US.  It'd be nice if we could open out the page with something like "Knock-and-announce is an ancient common law tradition incorporated in the Fourth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.  In the UK, it is [some stuff] while in Canada and Australia, [some other stuff].  Even if the answer is "Nobody else thought it was such a big deal, so it's not formally represented in law anywhere else," that should still be in the article.


 * Unfortunately, I know nothing about the mechanics or legalities of searchs in other common law countries, so I can't be the one to make those improvements. Hopefully someone who does will see this! Zabieru (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Only states can expand rights via statute?
I added a citation needed tag to to this paragraph as [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knock-and-announce&diff=821872532&oldid=807720890] it's unsourced and I'm not sure it's accurate. It seem to suggest Hudson v. Michigan is only binding on federal cases and that only states could introduce statutes to exclude evidence from violation of knock and announce rules. I don't live in the US and I'm by non means an expert on US law but my understanding is this is simply wrong.

Hudson v. Michigan is binding on both federal and state searches in finding evidence does not have to be excluded on Fourth Amendment to the (federal) US constitutions grounds due to violations of the knock and announce rule. I mean the case being challenged was a state one not a federal one.

I'm sure states could introduce statutes with knock and announce rules and exclude evidence if these rules are violated but I don't believe there's anything stopping the federal government from doing the same, i.e. introducing statutes/amending the US code with knock and announce rules and exclude evidence if these rules are violated. These rules would only be binding on federal cases (unlike if it was found that the Fourth Amendment does require evidence is exclude if insufficient knock and announce is given) and could be changed at any time simply by amending the US code (i.e. a lot simpler process than amending the constitution) but that's no different from state statutes. At most, perhaps the federal government (congress) is never likely to exclude evidence due to violations of the knock and announce rule but that's a complicated thing.

The only real difference I can see is that states may have state constitutions which provide additional rights or may be worded and intepreted differently, i.e. constitutional issues (rather than simple statute) issues could be at play for states despite Hudson v. Michigan still standing. (I guess there is the additional complexity of what happens when evidence was collected by the state government under their rules and the federal government wants to use it in their case. This could happen in the reverse or even between states but I guess the first example may be most likely.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)