In executing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with an offense, or a search warrant, or when authorized to make an arrest for a felony without a warrant, the officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or other building, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he is refused admittance; or without giving notice of his authority and purpose, if the judge or magistrate issuing a search warrant has inserted a direction therein that the officer executing it shall not be required to give such notice, but the political subdivision from which such officer is elected or appointed shall be liable for all damages to the property in gaining admission. The judge or magistrate may so direct only upon proof under oath, to his satisfaction that the property sought may be easily or quickly destroyed or disposed of, or that danger to the life or limb of the officer or another may result, if such notice be given; but this section is not intended to authorize any officer executing a search warrant to enter any house or building not described in the warrant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases, 1963–2020 · leading case:
State v. Lammers, 676 N.W.2d 716 (Neb. 2004).
State v. Lammers, 676 N.W.2d 716 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 14× “See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-411 (Reissue 1995). The State argues, inter alia, that the police officers were justified in forcing their way into the residence after their first knock and announce because they were searching for evidence of drugs and such evidence was easily disposable.”
State v. Penas, 263 N.W.2d 835 (Neb. 1978).
· cites it 24× “Defendant contends the violation of section 29-411, R.R.S.1943, requires the exclusion of the results of the breath analysis.”
Waldron v. Roark, 874 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 4× “But this does not end the analysis. While an officer may be permitted to enter the home under the rule in Payton, the Fourth Amendment is also concerned with the manner of the entry.”
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
· cites it 2× “200 (1978); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-411 (1975); Nev. Rev.”
State v. Vrtiska, 406 N.W.2d 114 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Vrtiska refers to the “notice” requirement contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-411 (Reissue 1985) pertaining to execution of a search warrant, which statute in part provides: In executing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with an offense, or a search warrant, or when…”
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).
· cites it 2× “Code § 94-6011; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-411 ; Nev. Rev. Stat.”
State v. Attaway, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. 1994).
· cites it 2× “656 (West 1982); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-411 (1989); Nev.Rev.Stat.”
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).
“725, § 5/108-8 (1992); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-411 (1995); Okla. Stat.”
State v. Kelley, 658 N.W.2d 279 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-411 (Reissue 1995) provides, in relevant part: In executing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with an offense, or a search warrant, or when authorized to make an arrest for a felony without a warrant, the officer may break open any outer or inner…”
Waldron v. Roark, 298 Neb. 26 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 2× “”19 Among the factors to be considered in assessing the reasonableness of a search or seizure is the “method of an officer’s entry into a dwelling.”20 Under certain circumstances, “an officer’s unan- nounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Davis v. State, 859 A.2d 1112 (Md. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2d 898, 900-901 (1991) (citing Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-411, which permits entry without notice when “the judge or magistrate issuing a search warrant has inserted therein that the officer executing it shall not be required to give such notice”); United States v.”
State v. Ramirez, 745 N.W.2d 214 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 3× “(ii) Knock and Announce Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-411 (Reissue 1995) provides that in executing a search or arrest warrant, the executing officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or other building, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.