-
IS KNOCK-NOTICE STILL RELEVANT?
Posted on May 21st, 2009 No commentsThe Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Gary Roberge for attempted manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a gun in connection with narcotics and possession of materials necessary for the production of methamphetamine.
Roberge was arrested after his then 16 year old daughter told the people that she babysat for that her father manufactured meth. They told a reserve police officer who employed them. Cleveland, Tennessee police Lieutenant Brumley then interviewed Roberge’s daughter and then got a search warrant for his house.
The affidavit supporting the search warrant requested permission to enter the residence without give knock notice. In support of the request Brumley wrote that Roberge owned guns, that he had previously been taken to a mental hospital, and that he had a bad temper. The court found that this was sufficient to find the exigent circumstance necessary to give permission for the police to enter Roberge’s residence without knocking on the door, giving notice of their presence and their purpose prior to entering the residence.
The police then went to Roberge’s residence, entered it without giving knock-notice, found him asleep in his bed with a gun nearby, and seized methamphetamine related equipment.
The trial court found that probably cause is not necessary to avoid giving the Fourth Amendment’s knock notice requirement prior to entry. A reasonable suspicion that knock notice would be dangerous, futile or interfere with the investigation is all that is needed. But the police officers must have an objective and particularized reason for their suspicion.
Whether or not the no-knock order was appropriate the Sixth Circuit, citing the US Supreme Court’s decision in Hudson v. Michigan, declared that failure to comply with the knock-notice requirement does not mandate suppression of the evidence.
Without excluding the evidence as a remedy for entering a residence; without giving knock-notice; does the knock-notice rule have any relevance. Why should police give notice if there is no penalty for the failure to give notice. True in this case, Roberge was sleeping. But if he was awake in his livingroom and heard the police entering, he could have shot shot the police. Apparently the chance of this happening is immaterial to the police because, knowing that Roberge had a gun, they still entered the residence.
Roberge was sentenced to 295 months in prison. Does anyone outside of Tennessee believe that a man should get nearly 25 years in prison for manufacturing methamphetamine for his own use, considering that while he had guns, he did not use them? Sentencing Roberge to 295 month cannot be considered a victory for the War On Drugs. Nor will it decrease the amount of drugs in circulation. But it will cost the government a lot of taxpayer dollars.
Fourth Amendment, Methamphetamine, Sixth Amendment, War on Drugs Fourth Amendment, Hudson v Michigan, Methamphetamine. Manufacturing, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Tennessee Leave a ReplyLeave a Reply




Recent Comments