NRS
179.055 Officer may break door to serve warrant after admittance
refused; breaking of door or window to liberate officer or person acting in aid
of officer; use of reasonable and necessary force.
1. The officer may break open any outer or
inner door or window of a house, or any part of the house, or anything therein,
to execute the warrant, if, after notice of authority and purpose, the officer
is refused admittance.
2. The officer may break open any outer or
inner door or window of a house for the purpose of liberating a person who,
having entered to aid in the execution of the officer’s warrant, is detained
therein, or when necessary for the officer’s own liberation.
3. All reasonable and necessary force may
be used to effect an entry into any building or property or part thereof to
execute a search warrant. In the execution of the warrant, the person executing
it may reasonably detain and search any person in the place at the time in
order to protect himself or herself from attack or to prevent destruction,
disposal or concealment of any instruments, articles or things particularly
described in the warrant.
(Added to NRS by 1967,
1459)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1980–2004 · leading case:
Zabeti v. State, 96 P.3d 773 (Nev. 2004).
Zabeti v. State, 96 P.3d 773 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 9× “The district court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the police officers did not violate NRS 179.055. 3 DISCUSSION [Headnote 1] Zabeti contends that the district court erred in concluding that a White Pine County district judge had jurisdiction to issue a…”
State v. Attaway, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. 1994).
· cites it 2× “§ 29-411 (1989); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 179.055 (1991); N.Y.Crim.”
King v. State, 998 P.2d 1172 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 5× “King also alleges that officers failed to knock and announce their presence prior to executing the search warrant in violation of NRS 179.055 (providing that an officer may break into a house to execute a warrant if refused admittance after notice of his authority and purpose).”
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 546 N.E.2d 879 (Mass. 1989).
“6 (1988); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.055 (1987); or have been judicially interpreted that way.”
Nelson v. State, 609 P.2d 717 (Nev. 1980).
“2 Because of our disposition here, we need not decide whether the officers’ failure to comply with Nevada’s '“knock/notice” requirements, see NRS 179.055, rendered the ensuing entry and search unlawful.”
United States v. Fox, 790 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Nev. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 3109 13 or NRS 179.055(1) 14 would have placed them in great peril.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.055(1) — 2 cases
Zabeti v. State, 96 P.3d 773 (Nev. 2004).
“The district court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the police officers did not violate NRS 179.055. 3 DISCUSSION [Headnote 1] Zabeti contends that the district court erred in concluding that a White Pine County district judge had jurisdiction to issue a…”
United States v. Fox, 790 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Nev. 1992).
“§ 3109 13 or NRS 179.055(1) 14 would have placed them in great peril.”
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.