Steiney Richards, Petitioner v. Wisconsin The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting seizures and searches on a suspect's person or property, unless under the authorization of a judge. The case of Richards vs. Wisconsin brings into perspective the knock-and-announce rule of the Fourth Amendment.

Statement of the Case (adopted from LII, 2014; ACLU, 1997; Hall, 2014)

Police officers in Madison, Wisconsin, suspected Steiney Richards of drug dealing and requested authorization to search his motel room under a no-knock warrant. The judge, however, found the facts insufficient to justify a no-knock entry, and instead granted a conventional warrant requiring police to knock on Richard's door and announce their presence prior to resorting to forcible access. On arrival at Richard's motel room, one of the officers knocked and announced that he was an employee of the hotel. Richards opened the door, and on seeing a uniformed officer, slammed it shut. Almost instinctively, the officers rammed the door and found the suspect trying to make a break for it. They also found cocaine and drugs hidden in his bathroom. At trial, the suspect sought to subdue the presented evidence, as obtained from his motel room on grounds that it had been obtained through forcible entry. The trial court denied Richard's motion, holding that law enforcement officers are not necessarily obligated to knock and identify themselves during the execution of a search warrant in drug related cases, largely because reasonable cause for exigent circumstances necessarily exists. Richards sought review on certiorari, which the court granted

The Issue: is it mandatory for law enforcement officers to 'knock and announce their presence' in the course of search warrants execution in drug felony cases; or rather, does a...

Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting unlawful seizures and searches on a suspect's person or property. In the case of Wilson vs. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), the Supreme Court held that in line with the amendment, "police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting forcible entry" (LII, 2014, n.pag). However, as ACLU notes in its 1997 brief, there are exceptions to this requirement. These exceptions exist due to exigent circumstances that concern either public safety or destruction of evidence (ACLU, 1997). Felony drug investigations in most instances entail the above circumstances.
To justify their operation under the provision of these exceptions, however, police officers must be reasonably convinced that the proclamation of their presence could in one way or the other "inhibit the effective investigation of the…