United States v. Banks

Media Items
United States v. Banks - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
United States v. Banks - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Randall J. Roske (argued the cause for Respondent)
David B. Salmons (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
02-473
Petitioner: 
United States
Respondent: 
Lashawn Lowell Banks
Opinion: 
540 U.S. 31 (2003)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United States v. Banks , 540 U.S. 31 (2003)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_473)
Facts of the Case: 

On July 15, 1998 police officers, with a warrant, knocked on the door of suspected drug dealer Lashawn Banks. They waited between 15 and 20 seconds, and when Banks did not come to the door they smashed it open with a battering ram. Banks was arrested but, before his trial, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his apartment because, he claimed, the forced entry had been unlawful. When the request was denied, he pled guilty, but eventually attempted to retract his guilty plea on the advice of a new attorney. The new attorney, Randall Roske, argued that the search was unconstitutional because officers did not wait long enough before breaking down the door, and had no evidence that waiting longer would have had negative consequences. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling the search unconstitutional and suppressing the evidence found during it.

Question: 

How long must officers wait after knocking on a door before they can use force to break it down in order to execute a warrant?

Conclusion: 

The Court unanimously held that 15 to 20 seconds was a reasonable period for police to wait before entering by force when they were investigating drug charges because waiting any longer was likely to result in the destruction of evidence. Justice David Souter, writing for the court, stated that "while we agree... that this call is a close one, we think that after 15 to 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any longer."

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court