8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davenport v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 (Ind.1984). 2008See Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 (Ind.1984) (holding that “[i]t is well settled that Indiana recognizes the ‘knock and announce’ rule for the execution of arrest and search warrants,” and “[i]t is also well settled that this knock and announce requirement is not to be adhered to blindly regardless of the particular circumstances confronting the authorities at the time the search is to be conducted.”), reh’g denied; Dusch, 259 Ind. at 512 , 289 N.E.2d at 517 . 8 In summary, Ind.Code § 35-33-5-7 does not expressly prohibit a no knock warrant. | 4 | 4 |
Ludlow v. Stategreen2 sentences1985See Ludlow v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 266 , 314 N.E.2d 750 ; Dusch, supra. The Indiana cases upholding police actions despite violations of the knock and announce rule involve not only a quest for illegal drugs, but some other indicator of defendant's intent to evade the lawful execution of a warrant as well,. 1985See Ludlow v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 266 , 314 N.E.2d 750 ; Dusch, supra. The Indiana cases upholding police actions despite violations of the knock and announce rule involve not only a quest for illegal drugs, but some other indicator of defendant's intent to evade the lawful execution of a warrant as well,. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2010At the same time, the Court recognized, "[w]hat the knock-and-announce rule has never protected ... is one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant." Id. 2010At the same time, the Court recognized, "[wlhat the knock-and-announce rule has never protected ... is one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant." Id. | 3 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Dusch
green
2 sentences2008See Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 (Ind.1984) (holding that “[i]t is well settled that Indiana recognizes the ‘knock and announce’ rule for the execution of arrest and search warrants,” and “[i]t is also well settled that this knock and announce requirement is not to be adhered to blindly regardless of the particular circumstances confronting the authorities at the time the search is to be conducted.”), reh’g denied; Dusch, 259 Ind. at 512 , 289 N.E.2d at 517 . 8 In summary, Ind.Code § 35-33-5-7 does not expressly prohibit a no knock warrant. 2008See Davenport v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 (Ind.1984) (holding that “[i]t is well settled that Indiana recognizes the ‘knock and announce’ rule for the execution of arrest and search warrants,” and “[i]t is also well settled that this knock and announce requirement is not to be adhered to blindly regardless of the particular circumstances confronting the authorities at the time the search is to be conducted.”), reh’g denied; Dusch, 259 Ind. at 512 , 289 N.E.2d at 517 . 8 In summary, Ind.Code § 35-33-5-7 does not expressly prohibit a no knock warrant. | 3 | 1984–2008 |
Ker v. California
green
2 sentences1976Our Supreme Court reasoned in Dusch, supra, in interpreting Ker v. California (1964), 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 , as follows: *325 “It is important to note that under both of these opinions the type of exigent circumstances which justifies the breach of a knock and announce requirement are those which are particular to the facts of the case. . . . 1976Our Supreme Court reasoned in Dusch, supra, in interpreting Ker v. California (1964), 374 U.S. 23 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 , as follows: *325 “It is important to note that under both of these opinions the type of exigent circumstances which justifies the breach of a knock and announce requirement are those which are particular to the facts of the case. . . . | 3 | 1972–1976 |
Richards v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2010Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 387 , 117 S.Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). 2010Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 387 , 117 S.Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2008Id., 299 N.E.2d at 197-198 . 1985See Davenport, supra (defendant fled into house upon identifying police); Cannon v. State (1980), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 578 (yelling and car horn honking as police approached house and sounds of running inside); Johnson v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 105 , 299 N.E.2d 194 (footsteps running away from door). | 2 | 1985–2008 |
Cannon v. State
green
2 sentences1985See Davenport, supra (defendant fled into house upon identifying police); Cannon v. State (1980), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 578 (yelling and car horn honking as police approached house and sounds of running inside); Johnson v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 105 , 299 N.E.2d 194 (footsteps running away from door). 1985See Davenport, supra (defendant fled into house upon identifying police); Cannon v. State (1980), Ind. App., 414 N.E.2d 578 (yelling and car horn honking as police approached house and sounds of running inside); Johnson v. State (1973), 157 Ind. App. 105 , 299 N.E.2d 194 (footsteps running away from door). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
CUNEO PRESS, INC., THE v. Warshawsky & Co.
green
2 sentences1972In Schreiber v. State (1928), 201 Ind. 37 , 164 N. E. 2d 258 , the defendant was charged with maintaining a public nuisance by selling liquor from his house. 1972In Schreiber v. State (1928), 201 Ind. 37 , 164 N.E.2d 258 , the defendant was charged with maintaining a public nuisance by selling liquor from his house. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Schreiber v. State
green
2 sentences1972In Schreiber v. State (1928), 201 Ind. 37 , 164 N. E. 2d 258 , the defendant was charged with maintaining a public nuisance by selling liquor from his house. 1972In Schreiber v. State (1928), 201 Ind. 37 , 164 N.E.2d 258 , the defendant was charged with maintaining a public nuisance by selling liquor from his house. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Sabbath v. United States
green
2 sentences1972Sabbath v. U.S. (1968), 391 U.S. 585 , 88 S. Ct. 1755 , 20 L. 1972Sabbath v. U.S. (1968), 391 U.S. 585 , 88 S. Ct. 1755 , 20 L. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.