Ten-Second Bypass to Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of Nebraska Undermines the Knock-and-Announce Rule in State v. Lammers

Abstract

INTRODUCTION|The law has long recognized that law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search a private residence are generally required to knock and announce their presence and authority before forcibly entering. This notice requirement, commonly referred to as the "knock-and-announce rule," may have originated in the thirteenth century, but is often traced at least as far back as Semayne's Case in 1603, where the court required the sheriff as representative of the King to signify the cause of his coming and make a request to open the door. In Wilson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court expressed little doubt the Framers intended an officer's method of entry to be a factor to consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a search, and held the knock-and-announce rule formed part of the Court's reasonableness inquiry of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, the Wilson Court acknowledged the rule was not absolute and the presumption in favor of announcement could give way when circumstances demonstrated an announcement would be useless, dangerous, or inhibit an effective investigation. From the beginning, courts have been called upon to balance the competing policy interests presented by the fundamental liberty interests of the individual and the interests of society in effective law enforcement. As a result of the ongoing war on drugs and a general low regard for those involved in the drug culture, courts have increasingly been willing to ....