No Knock – No Evidence? No Way Says Supreme Court

Share Article

Supreme Court’s June’s ruling on so-called Knock and Announce rule has sent shockwaves through criminal law courtrooms around the nation. Ruling paves way for evidence to be admissible despite the lack of a knock before a home search for criminal investigations.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that police, once obtaining a valid warrant, can enter a home and seize evidence without knocking. The ruling is viewed as an early indicator of the conservative stance of the Court and a huge advance in increasing police powers.

The 5-4 ruling has many political analysts and legal pundits questioning things to come as a result of the seemingly conservative shift in the court following Justice O’Connor’s departure.

“As people debate what the ruling means, criminal attorneys like myself, are more concerned with how this ruling impacts our clients,” Douglas Kans, a criminal defense attorney in Minnesota explains. “This ruling has serious repercussions and it will be important for our clients that we sort this out and see how criminal courts interpret the ruling,” Kans continues.

The majority ruling, written by Justice Scalia, concluded that even if the police entered the home in violation of the knock rule, the warrant would have allowed them to enter the home anyway ultimately obtaining the gun and drugs that were found in the home of the defendant.

A strong dissent written by Justice Breyer concluded that the ruling weakened or “perhaps destroys” the value of the knock-and-announce protection that the Court had previously upheld for more than 90 years.

As criminal attorneys, legal experts, judges and political analysts determine the overall effect of the ruling as well as what, if anything, it signals in terms of future rulings, criminal defendants around the nation have lost the ability to suppress evidence based on the knock-and-announce ruling.

“There are a number of defendants whose cases may have turned out quite different if this ruling had come out prior to their case,” Kans explains. “Right or wrong, it is up to criminal defense attorneys in Minnesota and every other state to defend their clients in light of the new ruling,” Kans concludes.

As the arguably more conservative Court continues to hear cases that will impact police activities and criminal prosecutions, defense attorneys will keep an eye on the Court as they alter criminal defenses in light of new rulings.

About Kans Lawfirm

For over a decade, Mr. Kans has dedicated himself solely to defending individuals charged with crimes. Over this period, he has earned the respect of fellow colleagues, prosecutors, and Judges throughout the State of Minnesota. Mr. Kans has successfully litigated and negotiated hundreds of criminal cases during his career. He has had many proud achievements, but none are as important as the personal satisfaction he receives from working hard and achieving wonderful results for his clients.

Douglas Kans



Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Douglas Kans
Visit website