18 U.S.C. § 3109
Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit
The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 799
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: United States v. Michael Bynum, 362 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Michael Bynum, 362 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2004). “However, because the record establishes the existence of exigent circumstances threatening officer safety, the officers’ no-knock entry violated neither the Fourth Amendment nor 18 U.S.C. § 3109 . We lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of Bynum’s “plain view” argument because…”
State v. Dixon, 924 P.2d 181 (Haw. 1996). “The knock and announce statute, HRS § 803-11, appeared virtually verbatim in the 1869 Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 3 and there is no legislative history from which we can discern the intended meaning of “force an entrance” or “breaking.”
United States v. Winston Bryant McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984). “McConney contends that the entry into his home violated the federal “knock-notice” requirement which provides that an officer, before opening a door of a house in order to enter, must give notice of his identity and purpose and be refused admittance by the occupant.”
Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958). “But the Government agrees with petitioner that the validity of the entry to execute the arrest without warrant must be tested by criteria identical with those embodied in 18 U. S. C. § 3109 , which deals with entry to execute a search warrant.”
State v. Harada, 41 P.3d 174 (Haw. 2002). “The federal knock and announce statute applicable in Contreras-Ceballos provided that "[t]he officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and…”
United States v. Don Michael Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409 (9th Cir. 1996). “He also contends that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [“ATF”] violated the “knock and announce” requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3109 , and that the ATF agents exceeded the scope of the search incident to arrest and the plain view search that produced…”
United States v. Joseph Bethea, 598 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1979). “Bethea claimed that there was no valid consent for the search and that the officers violated 18 U.S.C. § 3109 by their entries into his mother’s residence.”
Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979). “23, 28, 38 (1963); 18 U. S. C. § 3109 . Petitioner nonetheless argues that covert entries are unconstitutional for their lack of notice.”
United States v. Lashawn Lowell Banks, 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2002). “” See 18 U.S.C. § 3109 . After fifteen to twenty seconds without a response, armed SWAT officers made a forced entry into Banks’ apartment.”
United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003). “The question is whether their 15-to-20-second wait before a forcible entry satisfied the Fourth Amendment and 18 U. S. C. §3109 . We hold that it did. I With information that Banks was selling cocaine at home, North Las Vegas Police Department officers and Federal Bureau of…”
United States v. Kevin Mendonsa, 989 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1993). “He asserts that there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, that there was not good faith in executing it, and that the officers violated the “knock and announce” requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (1988). The issues in this appeal are: (1) whether there was…”
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). “229 , and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. § 3109 . We applied that statute in Miller v.”
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.