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 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. Michigangreen2 sentences2024The United States Supreme Court has held that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule by police when executing a search warrant does not require the application of the exclusionary rule under the Federal Constitution ( see generally Hudson v Michigan , 547 US 586 [2006]). 2024The United States Supreme Court has held that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule by police when executing a search warrant does not require the application of the exclusionary rule under the Federal Constitution ( see generally Hudson v Michigan , 547 US 586 [2006]). | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024We are left to wonder whether counsel's failure to seek suppression under the State Constitution based upon a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement was "reasonable considering all the circumstances" and whether counsel's error, if any, was prejudicial ( Strickland , 466 US at 688; see id. at 694). 2024We are left to wonder whether counsel's failure to seek suppression under the State Constitution based upon a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement was "reasonable considering all the circumstances" and whether counsel's error, if any, was prejudicial ( Strickland , 466 US at 688; see id. at 694). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nievesgreen2 sentences2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sherwoodgreen2 sentences2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cabangreen1 sentence2023In light of the above, trial counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise a speculative and meritless claim ( see People v Caban , 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; People v Hunter , 175 AD3d 1601 , 1604 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1078 [2019]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Silversteingreen2 sentences2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 2023In a situation so fraught with danger, dealing with the forcible entry into the sanctity of the home, the failure to abide by the knock-and-announce rule is not a mere technical violation — particularly since law enforcement made no request for a no-knock warrant and County Court provided no such authorization ( compare People v Silverstein , 74 NY2d 768, 770 [1989] [evidence seized pursuant to the execution of a nighttime search warrant need not be suppressed where the warrant authorized a nighttime search even in the absence of such a request in the warrant application]; People v Tucker , 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences2023In Wilson v Arkansas ( 514 US 927 [1995]), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that the "common-law 'knock and announce' principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment" ( id. at 929 ). 2023In Wilson v Arkansas ( 514 US 927 [1995]), the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that the "common-law 'knock and announce' principle forms a part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment" ( id. at 929 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2023Although the failure to pursue suppression "does not necessarily equate to a deprivation of meaningful representation, counsel may still be deemed ineffective in the rare case where a defendant shows the absence of a strategic or legitimate explanation in counsel's strategy not to" ( People v Zeh , 144 AD3d 1395 , 1396 [3d Dept 2016[*10]] [internal citations omitted], lv denied 29 NY3d 954 [2017]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Zeh
green
1 sentence2023Although the failure to pursue suppression "does not necessarily equate to a deprivation of meaningful representation, counsel may still be deemed ineffective in the rare case where a defendant shows the absence of a strategic or legitimate explanation in counsel's strategy not to" ( People v Zeh , 144 AD3d 1395 , 1396 [3d Dept 2016[*10]] [internal citations omitted], lv denied 29 NY3d 954 [2017]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Fitzpatrick v. Cunningham
neutral
2 sentences2006Moreover, the purpose of the knock and announce requirement is to obviate the need for forcible entry (see People v DeCapua, 193 AD2d 1109 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 716 [1993]), which purpose was satisfied here. 2006Moreover, the purpose of the knock and announce requirement is to obviate the need for forcible entry (see People v DeCapua, 193 AD2d 1109 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 716 [1993]), which purpose was satisfied here. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Payton v. New York
green
1 sentence1993Payton v New York, 445 US 573 ), was met here. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Payton
green
1 sentence1993The purpose of the knock and announce requirement, "obviating the need for forcible entry” (People v Riddick, 45 NY2d 300, 314 , revd on other grounds sub nom. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Bernardo
green
1 sentence1979"The basic pur poses of the knock-and-announce rule in connection with the search of private premises are to protect the individual’s right to privacy and to reduce the possibility of harm to the police inherent in an unannounced entry.” (People v Di Bernardo, 89 Misc 2d 931, 933 .) Although it may be conceded that this is a marginal case in that the police procedure failed to conform to the precise demands of the statute nonetheless, the actions of the police did not rise to the level of forced entry envisioned by the statute. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ker v. California
green
1 sentence1977The constitutional requirement for such notice is set forth in Kerr v California ( 374 US 23 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Harvey
green
1 sentence1977It should be noted too that the opening of the storm door, after futilely knocking thereon, so that the police could knock on the inner door was not an entry in violation of the knock- and-announce rule (People v Harvey, 38 Mich App 39 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.