knock and announce rule in Alabama

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

2004See, e.g., Moore v. State, 650 So.2d 958 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (involving legality of a search under the Fourth Amendment); McClellan v. State, 452 So.2d 909 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (involving the legality of a search under § 15-5-9); Houk v. State, 455 So.2d 115 (Ala.Crim.App.l984)(same); and Laffitte v. State, supra (same), all four cases recognizing exceptions to the announcement requirement when the announcement of purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of officers executing a search warrant, or cause the destruction of the evidence sought.

1991This court held in Houk v. State , 455 So.2d 115 , 118 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), quoting Laffitte v. State , 370 So.2d 1108 , 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala. 1979): " ' "Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers' purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute 'exigent circumstances.' " ' " From the record, three distinct exigent circumstances existed at t

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

1994"This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala. Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala. Cr.App.1979), held: `"`"Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers' purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute `exigent circumstances.'" "" Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781 (Ala.Cr.Ap

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

1994"If the occupants of the dwelling fail to respond within a reasonable time, refusal can be presumed." Irwin v. State, 415 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 971 , 103 S.Ct. 302 , 74 L.Ed.2d 283 (1982).

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

1994"If the occupants of the dwelling fail to respond within a reasonable time, refusal can be presumed." Irwin v. State, 415 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 971 , 103 S.Ct. 302 , 74 L.Ed.2d 283 (1982).

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

1994This court, in Beshears v. State, 593 So.2d 174, 175 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), quoting Laffitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1979) held: “ ‘ “ ‘Where it appears from facts adduced that an announcement of the officers’ purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of the executing officers or cause destruction of the evidence sought, there would be no necessity for compliance with the knock and announce rule, for these exceptions constitute “exigent circumstances.” ”” ” Additionally, in Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., State v. Shelly, 58 Wash.App. 908 , 795 P.2d 187 (1990); State v. Jones, 127 N.H. 515 , 503 A.2d 802 (1985); State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605 (Minn.1984); State v. Miller, 449 A.2d 1065 (Del.Super.1982); United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370 (7th Cir.1991) (construing § 3109); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 873 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.1989)(same); and United States v. Finch, 998 F.2d 349 (6th Cir.1993)(same).

2004See, e.g., Moore v. State, 650 So.2d 958 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (involving legality of a search under the Fourth Amendment); McClellan v. State, 452 So.2d 909 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (involving the legality of a search under § 15-5-9); Houk v. State, 455 So.2d 115 (Ala.Crim.App.l984)(same); and Laffitte v. State, supra (same), all four cases recognizing exceptions to the announcement requirement when the announcement of purpose would frustrate a search, increase the personal peril of officers executing a search warrant, or cause the destruction of the evidence sought.

1994That court stated: "There are some state decisions holding that justification for noncompliance exists in exigent circumstances , as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe that they or someone within are in peril of bodily harm, Read v. Case , 4 Conn. 166 [1822], or that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence." 357 U.S. at 309 , 78 S.Ct. at 1195 -96 , 2 L.Ed.2d at 1338 .

1994That court stated: "There are some state decisions holding that justification for noncompliance exists in exigent circumstances , as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe that they or someone within are in peril of bodily harm, Read v. Case , 4 Conn. 166 [1822], or that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence." 357 U.S. at 309 , 78 S.Ct. at 1195 -96 , 2 L.Ed.2d at 1338 .

1994That court stated: "There are some state decisions holding that justification for noncompliance exists in exigent circumstances , as, for example, when the officers may in good faith believe that they or someone within are in peril of bodily harm, Read v. Case , 4 Conn. 166 [1822], or that the person to be arrested is fleeing or attempting to destroy evidence." 357 U.S. at 309 , 78 S.Ct. at 1195 -96 , 2 L.Ed.2d at 1338 .

1994(First emphasis added; second emphasis original.) The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Spinelli , 848 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1988), stated: "[W]e adhere to the principle implicit in our prior cases that exigent circumstances may excuse noncompliance with the knock-and-announce requirement only where (1) the officers believe there is an emergency situation and (2) their belief is objectively reasonable.

1994To excuse noncompliance either when the officers had no thought of emergency or when there was no reasonable basis for such thoughts would inappropriately compromise the privacy interest to be protected." 848 F.2d at 29 .

1994This time is ‘necessarily shortened’ where illegal drugs are involved due to the great likelihood of the ‘easy and swift destruction of the evidence.’ Harper v. State, 535 So.2d 599 , 600 Ala.Cr.App.1988) (quoting Irwin v. State, 415 So.2d at 1184 ).” (Emphasis added.) In this case, the State presented the un-contradicted testimony of Officer Logan and Officer Olive that law enforcement personnel announced their presence before forcibly entering the mobile home.

1994When the state is seeking to use safety concerns to excuse compliance with the knock-and-announce requirement, "the government must show that the police had concrete, particularized evidence that reasonably led them to believe that (1) there were weapons on the premises and (2) there was a realistic possibility that the occupant or occupants would use the weapons against them." Poole v. United States , 630 A.2d 1109 , 1118 (D.C.App. 1993).