{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021399652978600348, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010410641989589358, 'mean_word_length': 5.0701754385964914, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Supreme Court and the Knock and Announce Rule

The regular “Recent Legal Developments” feature here gives way to a review of Supreme Court decisions addressing one particular criminal justice–related issue: the knock and announce rule. The knock and announce rule is an ancient restriction on the manner by which the police may enter a dwelling. Although the knock and announce rule has been examined by every state and federal court (Hemmens, 1997), its applicability to the Fourth Amendment was never expressly determined by the Supreme Court until 1995. Since 1995, however, the Supreme Court has decided five cases involving the knock and announce rule. This article discusses the history and development of the knock and announce rule and examines the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, including Hudson v. Michigan, decided June 15, 2006. Law enforcement agencies are aggressively pursuing drug offenders. They are doing so with the advent of new technologies (such as chemical drug tests and infrared heat scanners) and new methods (such as pretext stops and profiling). A primary example of aggressive policing methods is the increase in unannounced, forcible entries of the homes of drug suspects. This aggressive manner of entry conflicts with the common law knock and announce rule. The knock and announce rule requires police officers seeking to enter a home to first notify occupants of their presence and purpose. The rule was intended to provide some protection to homeowners from unwarned police entries. The rule is not absolute, however, as courts recognize several exceptions. The police seek to avoid the rule to surprise suspects, ostensibly to protect themselves, and prevent the destruction of evidence.