Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richards v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences1999Ricketts explains: In each case, it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to determine whether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the knock and announce requirement. [Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S.Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997)] at 1421 [of 117 S.Ct.] “In order to justify a ‘no knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would [allow] the destruction of evidence.” Id. 1999Ricketts explains: In each case, it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to determine whether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the knock and announce requirement. [Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S.Ct. 1416 , 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997)] at 1421 [of 117 S.Ct.] “In order to justify a ‘no knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would [allow] the destruction of evidence.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bakergreen2 sentences2005However, “[although the Supreme Court has incorporated the common law ‘knock and announce’ principle into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and acknowledged that the failure to comply with the knock and announce requirement may render an otherwise valid search and seizure invalid, the Court also has recognized that non-compliance will not inevitably offend the Constitution.” State v. Baker, 103 S.W.3d 711, 718 (Mo. banc 2003). 2005“Where exigent circumstances exist, legitimate law enforcement interests may outweigh an individual’s right to be notified prior to police entry.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael D. Murphygreen1 sentence1998U.S. v. Murphy, 69 F.3d 237, 243 (8th Cir.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 594 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 . ■ For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded in Hudson that “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated [i.e., the “knock and announce” rule] would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Id. at 593 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 . *150 But, as Justice Kennedy noted in his concurring opinion as the fifth member of the Hudson majority, “[t]oday’s decision determines only that in the specific context of the knock-and-announce requirement, a violation is not sufficiently related to the later discovery of evidence to justify su 2011Id. at 594 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 . ■ For these reasons, the Supreme Court concluded in Hudson that “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated [i.e., the “knock and announce” rule] would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.” Id. at 593 , 126 S.Ct. 2159 . *150 But, as Justice Kennedy noted in his concurring opinion as the fifth member of the Hudson majority, “[t]oday’s decision determines only that in the specific context of the knock-and-announce requirement, a violation is not sufficiently related to the later discovery of evidence to justify su | 1 | 2011–2011 |
New York v. Harris
green
2 sentences2007Harris, 495 U.S. at 20 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 . 2007Harris, 495 U.S. at 20 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Ricketts
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 660 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2003Id. 2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.