knock and announce requirement (Arkansas) · Go Syfert
← Arkansas issues

knock and announce requirement in Arkansas

8 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Richards v. Wisconsingreen
scotus · 1997 · cited in 5 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2017
2 sentences

2002The Court again addressed the knock-and-announce principle in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S. Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997).

2002The Court again addressed the knock-and-announce principle in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S. Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997).

15
Hudson v. Michigangreen
scotus · 2006 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017First, the knock-and-announce requirement safeguards and protects the interests of officers themselves “because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594 (2006).

2017First, the knock-and-announce requirement safeguards and protects the interests of officers themselves “because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident.” Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 , 165 L.Ed.2d 56 (2006).

11
United States v. Musagreen
ksd · 2003 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Cal. 2009) (“A 5 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 219 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and- announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1208 (D.

2017Cal. 2009) (“A |r,parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 173 Cal.App.3d 983 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 331 (1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and-announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1208 (D.

11
Foster v. Stategreen
arkctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See Foster v. State, 66 Ark.

11
United States v. George Alan Groginsgreen
ca4 · 1998 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

CaseCitedYears
Ilo v. State green
ark · 2002
2 sentences

2010Id. at 151 , 85 S.W.3d at 550 .

2010Id. at 151 , 85 S.W.3d at 550 .

22004–2010
People v. Montenegro green
calctapp · 1985
2 sentences

2017Cal. 2009) (“A 5 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 219 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and- announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1208 (D.

2017Cal. 2009) (“A |r,parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 173 Cal.App.3d 983 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 331 (1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and-announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1208 (D.

12017–2017
United States v. Musa green
ca10 · 2005
2 sentences

2017Kan. 2003) (“The government does not cite, nor did the Court find, cases that extend a probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy to elimination of the knock and announce requirement . . . .”), rev’d on other grounds by United States v. Musa, 401 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005).

2017Kan. 2003) (“The government does not cite, nor did the Court find, cases that extend a probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy to elimination of the knock and announce requirement....”), rev’d on other grounds by United States v. Musa, 401 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2005).

12017–2017
Mazepink v. State green
ark · 1999
2 sentences

2017In Hudson, the Court held that if officers 1 Hudson overrules our decision in Mazepink v. State, 336 Ark. 171 , 987 S.W.2d 648 (1999) wherein we concluded that under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusion of evidence was the appropriate remedy for a knock-and-announce violation.

2017In Hudson, the Court held that if officers 1 Hudson overrules our decision in Mazepink v. State, 336 Ark. 171 , 987 S.W.2d 648 (1999) wherein we concluded that under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusion of evidence was the appropriate remedy for a knock-and-announce violation.

12017–2017
Cherry v. State green
ark · 1990
2 sentences

2017Id. at 468 , 791 S.W.2d at 357 . 12 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 As the majority notes, it is an issue of first impression for this court whether parolees are entitled to a knock-and-announce warning prior to a search executed pursuant to their terms of parole.

2017Id. at 468 , 791 S.W.2d at 357 . 12 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 As the majority notes, it is an issue of first impression for this court whether parolees are entitled to a knock-and-announce warning prior to a search executed pursuant to their terms of parole.

12017–2017
Michael J. Green and Cheryl Poulsen v. Marlo Butler, David Carroll, Mark Salsberry green
ca7 · 2005
2 sentences

2017Cal. 2009) (“A 5 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 219 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and- announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1208 (D.

2017Cal. 2009) (“A |r,parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 173 Cal.App.3d 983 , 219 Cal.Rptr. 331 (1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and-announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1208 (D.

12017–2017
Lane v. State green
ark · 2017
2 sentences

2017Cal. 2009) (“A 5 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 parole or probation search does not permit an exception to the knock and announce requirement unless there are exigent circumstances or futility.”); Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689 (2005) (holding that there is no blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for parolees); People v. Montenegro, 219 Cal. Rptr. 331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (for warrantless parole arrests, there must be substantial compliance with knock-and- announce rules); United States v. Musa, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1208 (D.

2017In Mazepink, we did not address whether the exclusionary rule should apply under article 2, section 15 of the Arkansas Constitution. 8 Cite as 2017 Ark. 34 violate the knock-and-announce rule in the course of executing a search warrant, then the trial court may not suppress the evidence for two reasons.

12017–2017
cluster 664700 green
ca8 · 1994
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
United States v. Rondell Bates green
ca6 · 1996
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
United States v. Moore green
ca10 · 1996
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
United States v. George Anthony Stewart green
ca10 · 1989
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
United States v. Steven Lester Marts Pamela Sue Marts green
ca8 · 1993
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
Mandilakis v. United States green
scotus · 1994
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Grogins, 163 F.3d 795 ; United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bates, 84 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 513 U.S. 949 (1994); United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216 (8th Cir. 1993); Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 .

12002–2002
Wilson v. Arkansas green
scotus · 1995
1 sentence

2001The Court traced the knock and announce principle from early English common law to modern times beginning with the early rule that “when the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter,” and noting that the rule was qualified by the statement that “before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors . . . , for the law without a default in the owner abhors the destruction or breaking of any house.” See Wilson

12001–2001
People v. Maddox green
cal · 1956
2 sentences

1982The Court quoted, without disapproval, a statement expressed by the California court in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 630 , 294 Pac. 2d 6 , cert. denied 352 U.S. 858 (1956), that suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with the knock and announce rule.

1982The Court quoted, without disapproval, a statement expressed by the California court in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 630 , 294 Pac. 2d 6 , cert. denied 352 U.S. 858 (1956), that suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with the knock and announce rule.

11982–1982
Jackson v. Texas green
scotus · 1956
1 sentence

1982The Court quoted, without disapproval, a statement expressed by the California court in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 630 , 294 Pac. 2d 6 , cert. denied 352 U.S. 858 (1956), that suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with the knock and announce rule.

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

PA 54 (1982–2023) NM 34 (1993–2023) FL 32 (1979–2026) OH 30 (1983–2017) MA 30 (1980–2025) TX 29 (2002–2013) NJ 27 (1995–2026) IL 25 (1978–2010) WA 21 (1972–2020) WI 21 (1985–2022) OR 13 (1970–2014) MD 13 (1997–2009) HI 11 (1995–2022) DC 11 (1990–2002) ND 11 (1985–2014) MN 10 (1972–2015) LA 9 (1998–2015) MI 9 (1997–2003) IN 8 (1972–2010) VA 8 (1989–2007) AR 8 (1982–2017) RI 7 (1974–2014) CA 7 (2000–2016) MO 6 (1998–2011) UT 6 (1988–2015) AL 6 (1984–2004) NY 6 (1977–2024) DE 6 (1969–2015) TN 6 (1998–2010) MT 5 (2004–2019) KS 5 (1992–2014) CO 4 (1989–2011) IA 4 (1982–2017) NC 4 (1979–2002) KY 4 (1998–2024) NE 3 (1991–2016) AZ 3 (1981–2010) NH 3 (1985–2010) AK 2 (1979–1986) GA 2 (2005–2012) OK 2 (2007–2024) VT 2 (1993–2000)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check