The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Granted: Monday, February 24, 2003
Argument: Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Decision: Tuesday, December 2, 2003
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Search and Seizure

Advocates

Randall J. Roske (argued the cause for Respondent)
David B. Salmons (argued the cause for Petitioner)

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."

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_473/>
(last visited ).