More Subjects
[Name of the Writer]
[Name of Instructor]
[Subject]
[Date]
Richards Vs. Wisconsin
Police in Madison, Wisconsin got a search warrant to examine a suspect named Richard hotel room for the illegal possession of drugs and all other items. Although the magistrate did not approve a no-knock entry into the victim's room, they got a general search warrant which required them to knock on the door and then identify themselves as police before starting the search operation. Once they arrived on the scene one of the officers knocked on the door and identify himself as hotel custodian. When the suspect opened the door, he saw another officer in uniform behind him and slammed the door on their face. When he did that, then the officer broke through the door and caught Richards while he was trying to escape the crime scene. After proper investigation of the room, they found cocaine and cash amount in the bathroom. When he appeared in the court, he demanded evidence suppressed because according to him the officer did not knock and identify themselves. In response, the state answered that Richards already knew that who was on the door and if they identified themselves then he would escape and destroy all the evidence.
The issue, in this case, referred to search and seizure; therefore it was needed in this particular case if the police violated the protection which was given by the fourth amendment which was related to illegal searches and seizures once the officers didn’t knock and identify themselves before entering the room. So the issue was there any blanket exception to the "knock and announce" rule of serving permits particularly when subatances like drugs were involved.
The holding, in this case, was no. The court did not provide any blanket exception for cases of drugs to knock and reveal their identity. But in order to obtain a no-knock warrant, the officer should possess genuine reason related to the occasion that knocking in such situation would be risky or it would involve the damage of evidence ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"mjT4sCDQ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Richards v. Wisconsin Case Brief | Casetext})","plainCitation":"(Richards v. Wisconsin Case Brief | Casetext)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1034,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/L8U7EE79"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/L8U7EE79"],"itemData":{"id":1034,"type":"webpage","title":"Richards v. Wisconsin Case Brief | Casetext","URL":"https://casetext.com/analysis/richards-v-wisconsin-case-brief","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",3,21]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Richards v. Wisconsin Case Brief | Casetext).
The issue, in this case, was the balance between privacy and the concerns related to public interests. In this case, the court frowned over no-knock entries except in some special cases like drugs in this particular case. The defense attorney referred to the case Wilson vs. Arkansas case while going against no-knock entries. Although entering without not knocking was against the sanctity of private properties of the individuals but he referred to drug possession as an exception due to the risks involved in it. They argue that in a situation when there are risks of weapons possessions or evidence destruction, then it is justified to enter the suspect's place while not revealing the identity. The rationale that was provided in this particular case was simple, that is that in some particular situation it is preferable to hide the identity as in this case the police were right because if they identified themselves then not only the suspect would escape, but also he would destroy all the drugs and then there would be no clue about the illegal action ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"HWTL9ysc","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Hemmens)","plainCitation":"(Hemmens)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1031,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/5IK7I79U"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/5IK7I79U"],"itemData":{"id":1031,"type":"book","title":"The Supreme Court and the Knock and Announce Rule","source":"CiteSeer","abstract":"The regular “Recent Legal Developments ” feature here gives way to a review of SupremeCourt decisions addressing one particular criminal justice–related issue: the knock and announce rule. The knock and announce rule is an ancient restriction on the manner by which the police may enter a dwelling. Although the knock and announce rule has been examined by every state and federal court (Hemmens, 1997), its applicability to the Fourth Amendment was never expressly determined by the Supreme Court until 1995. Since 1995, however, the Supreme Court has decided five cases involving the knock and announce rule. This article discusses the history and development of the knock and announce rule and examines the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, including Hudson v. Michigan, decided","author":[{"family":"Hemmens","given":"Craig"}]}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Hemmens).
The ruling of this case is also quite significant in case of criminal crime justice because most of the time it has been noticed that when the police identify themselves, then the suspects flew from the scenes and then they are never caught. So if the police have genuine reasons not to knock and identify themselves, then it is easy and also secure not to reveal their identity. So this ruling was not only helpful for the police officers in this particular case but in all the future cases where they would face any related thread and issue.
Work Cited
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Hemmens, Craig. The Supreme Court and the Knock and Announce Rule.
Richards v. Wisconsin Case Brief | Casetext. https://casetext.com/analysis/richards-v-wisconsin-case-brief. Accessed 21 Mar. 2019.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024