No Knock, No Announce, No Problem When Serving Arrest Warrants

UNITED STATES v. PELLETIER, USCA-1 No. 06-1287, 2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 29214, appeal from USDC-MND, before Circuit Judges Selya and Howard and USDJ-RID Smith sitting by designation, opinion by Selya, decided 28 Nov 2006.

LONG STORY SHORT: The Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan that failure to knock and announce before forcing entry to serve a search warrant does not justify suppression of evidence also applies when forcing entry to a subject's home to serve an arrest warrant. Binding in MA, ME, NH, RI.

FACTS: On 30 Dec 2004 the U.S. Parole Commission issued a warrant for Defendant's arrest for violating the substance abuse terms of his parole. Officers learned that he was in Room 151 of the EconoLodge. At 0900 21 Jan 2005, officers arrived at the EconoLodge and discovered that the room was in Defendant's girlfriend's sister's name. However, a motel employee said Defendant was really the occupant. A team of officers stacked outside the door and knocked four or five times loudly in succession, without response, and 15 seconds after the first knock, the officers used a passkey to enter the room, yelling "Police!" Officers found Defendant inside, arrested him on the parole arrest warrant without resistance, and Mirandized him. In plain view were numerous drug paraphernalia, including $4,740 U.S. currency and a substance later tested to be heroin in a partially open drawer.

PROCEDURE: The United States indicted Defendant for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Defendant moved to suppress all evidence in the motel room for violating the knock-and-announce rule. Even though the U.S. conceded a failure of knock-and-announce sufficiency, the court ruled that exigent circumstances justified a no-knock entry. SUPPRESSION DENIED in all respects. Defendant pleaded guilty on condition that he could appeal the suppression issue.

DECISION: While the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court decided Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006), in which officers serving a search warrant waited 3 to 5 seconds after knocking and announcing before forcing entry. The Supreme Court held that even though this may be an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and might subject the officers to civil suit, suppression of evidence would not further the goals of the exclusionary rule, and would lead to endless argument about how long is too long to wait. The First Circuit reasoned that since an arrest warrant allows officers to force entry into the subject's home to arrest him if there is probable cause to think he is there, the situation was just like Hudson for exclusionary rule purposes. Defendant was the de facto occpant of the motel room even if it was in his girlfriend's sister's name. Since the arrest warrant was for a parole violation, Defendant had even less basis to argue violation of his rights, since parolees trade most of their rights against search and seizure in return for not having to stay in prison. Neither did Defendant challenge the validity of the parole warrant. Denial of suppression AFFIRMED in all respects.

EDITORIAL: Lotsa luck in the civil rights suit, guy. The rest of the case shows that he was quite a dope-slinger and general ne'er-do-well so he is sitting in Club Fed for the next 14 years or so. Had the police yelled "Police!" at the same time as they were knocking, there wouldn't have been any issue with not announcing. Not that I am a particular fan of giving bad guys time to come up with a resistance plan, since one of my fellow deputies got shot that way a few months ago. He's back on duty now but he does not remember that evening fondly.