18 U.S.C. § 3109 (Knock And Announce Rule)

42 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Susanne M. Hutchinson
  488 F.2d 484· 8th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the entry by an undercover agent invited into a home for a drug transaction did not require announcement under 18 U.S.C. § 3109, and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
• United States v. Grier
  866 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel production of pen register materials, as the defendant had ample opportunity for cross-examination and the denial was not prejudicial.
• Wayne v. United States
  318 F.2d 205· D.C. Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 82×
  The dissenting judge holds that the coroner's testimony, derived from an illegally obtained body, should have been excluded as evidence.
• United States v. Birdie Louise Joshua Harris
  501 F.2d 1· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-24 ·cited 79×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the informant's residence, nor was the trial court's active participation in questioning witnesses erroneous.
• United States v. Manning
  448 F.2d 992· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-26 ·cited 68×
• United States v. Harris
  435 F.2d 74· D.C. Cir.· 1970-08-12 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting a payroll robbery, as it failed to prove the defendant's knowing participation.
• United States v. Ortiz
  445 F.2d 1100· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-02 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine for sale, and that the search of the cabin was lawful under 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
• United States v. Glassel
  488 F.2d 143· 9th Cir.· 1973-12-07 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the cocaine was lawfully seized despite potential non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109 because an undercover officer was lawfully present and had constructive possession of the contraband. The court also held that the trial judge properly refused to instruct t
• NG PUI YU v. United States
  352 F.2d 626· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-20 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest the appellant without a warrant and that the entry into the appellant's dwelling was not in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
• United States v. Whitney
  633 F.2d 902· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-09 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrants were validly issued based on sufficient probable cause, the execution of the warrants did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 due to exigent circumstances, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to reveal the informant's identity
• United States v. DeLUTIS
  722 F.2d 902· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-06 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove Michael DeLutis was a party to the conspiracy, reversing his conviction. The convictions of George and Shirley Eunis were affirmed.
• United States v. Phillips
  497 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1974-03-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that agents need not have probable cause to believe a suspect is in his own building to enter and arrest him there.
• United States v. Tolliver
  665 F.2d 1005· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the entry was justified by exigent circumstances, and the restriction on cross-examination was within the trial court's discretion.
• United States v. Fluker
  543 F.2d 709· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the unannounced, forcible entry through the outer door of a two-unit apartment building violated 18 U.S.C. § 3109, requiring suppression of evidence obtained from Young's apartment and Foster's person. Fluker's conviction was affirmed.
• United States v. Noreikis
  481 F.2d 1177· 7th Cir.· 1973-06-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause for the search warrant and that the execution of the warrant complied with statutory requirements, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for attempting to manufacture DMT.
• United States v. Francis
  646 F.2d 251· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3109 does not apply to commercial premises like a barbershop, and that the Fourth Amendment's knock-and-announce rule has less force when applied to businesses. The court also held that the arrest was based on probable cause and was not pretextual.
• United States v. Woodring
  444 F.2d 749· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the search and seizure were lawful, and the reopening of the government's case did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
• United States v. Ruminer
  786 F.2d 381· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that statements made during plea discussions suggesting false leads could be considered during sentencing because the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at sentencing, and 18 U.S.C. § 3661 permits broad consideration of information.
• United States v. Bethea
  598 F.2d 331· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the search of the bedroom was lawful because the defendant's sister had the authority to consent and her consent was voluntary, and that the officers' entry into the residence did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109.
• Jewell C. Woods v. United States
  240 F.2d 37· D.C. Cir.· 1956-12-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the admission of illegally obtained evidence was prejudicial to all appellants, not just Shay, and their convictions should be reversed unless the jury's judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.
• United States v. Nolan
  718 F.2d 589· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the seizure of evidence was lawful because exigent circumstances justified the unannounced entry, and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.
• United States v. Case
  435 F.2d 766· 7th Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 22×
  The dissent argues that the agents' entry into the hallway and subsequent seizure of evidence were lawful, and the suppression order should be reversed.
• United States v. Bonner
  874 F.2d 822· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that police officers complied with the federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, by giving notice of their authority and purpose and reasonably inferring refusal of admittance based on circumstances, or alternatively, that exigent circumstances justif
• United States v. Marcelo Jose Suarez
  380 F.2d 713· 2d Cir.· 1967-07-12 ·cited 20×
• Garza-Fuentes v. United States
  400 F.2d 219· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-26 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the appellants had standing to challenge the search and seizure, and that the unannounced entry into the motel room was reasonable under the circumstances, thus denying the motion to suppress. The court also found no reversible error regarding the tape recordi
• United States v. James
  764 F.2d 885· D.C. Cir.· 1985-06-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the police's forced entry was justified under 18 U.S.C. § 3109 due to exigent circumstances, and the evidence was sufficient to support Thomas James's possession conviction.
• United States v. Guidry
  534 F.2d 1220· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial entry by an agent posing as a helper was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent warrantless search of the home was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent the destruction of evidence.
• United States v. Stewart
  867 F.2d 581· 10th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Denver S.W.A.T. team's entry into the defendant's residence violated 18 U.S.C. § 3109 because no exigent circumstances justified the failure to knock and announce.
• Cognetta v. United States
  313 F.2d 870· 9th Cir.· 1963-02-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence found during the search was legally admissible because the entry at the front door, which was lawful, occurred first or simultaneously with any potentially unlawful entry at the rear door.
• United States v. Smith
  456 F.2d 1236· 9th Cir.· 1972-03-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the issue of probable cause for the arrest was not clearly raised below, but in the interests of justice, the case should be remanded for a determination of probable cause.
• Stamps v. United States
  436 F.2d 1059· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly denied Stamps' motion for relief from conviction based on Fourth Amendment claims, as the search was lawful.
• United States v. McDONALD
  991 F.2d 866· D.C. Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) does not require proof of intent to distribute drugs within the school zone, only possession within that zone. It also held that a juvenile conviction 'set aside' under the D.C. Youth Rehabilitation Act is not equivalent to an 'expunged' con
• United States v. Tracy
  835 F.2d 1267· 8th Cir.· 1988-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that the officers' failure to strictly comply with the knock-and-announce rule was justified by exigent circumstances and the likelihood that announcement would be a useless gesture.
• United States v. Couser
  732 F.2d 1207· 4th Cir.· 1984-04-25 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap, finding that even if the order technically failed to cover background conversations, suppression was not required absent bad faith or a substantial statutory violation.
• United States v. Arthuro Montano
  613 F.2d 147· 6th Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the warrantless search of the suitcase was not justified by exigent circumstances and violated the Fourth Amendment, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• United States v. Lopez
  475 F.2d 537· 7th Cir.· 1973-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arresting officers' entry into the room was lawful because the defendant voluntarily opened the door, thus not requiring compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109's announcement requirements, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying requests
• United States v. Spriggs
  996 F.2d 320· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the DEA agents' knock-and-announce procedure was proper, the admission of a cooperating witness's plea agreement terms was not plain error, the expert testimony was admissible, and the sentencing enhancement was supported by sufficient evidence.
• United States v. Guyon
  717 F.2d 1536· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense was error, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Brown
  556 F.2d 304· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the search of an unoccupied dwelling, even without announcing the purpose of the warrant, does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109, as it is futile to announce purpose to an empty house.
• Davis v. United States
  274 F.2d 585· D.C. Cir.· 1959-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that evidence of possession of lottery materials, even circumstantial, can support a jury's finding of promotion, but mere association with gamblers is insufficient. The court also affirmed that a search warrant's execution was lawful.
• United States v. Carter
  999 F.2d 182· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09
  The court held that evidence seized under a facially valid but flawed "no-knock" warrant was admissible under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment, and that the district court did not err in its sentencing determinations.
• United States v. Schenk
  983 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1993-01-08
  The court held that the search complied with the 'knock and announce' statute, the defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing, the cross-examination and admission of prior LSD sales were proper, and the sentencing adjustments were correct.