Excessive or unnecessary property destruction during a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful. 18 U.S.C. §3109, which authorizes the breaking of windows where the police are denied admittance, does not prohibit the breaking of a window, as in this case, even in circumstances where admittance is not denied. Where, as here, the police act reasonably, this satisfies the Fourth Amendment and §3109.Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997)The Fourth Amendment does not authorize a blanket exception to the knock and announce rule (the constitutional requirement recognized in Wilson v. Arkansas) in all felony drug investigations.

First, he says that officers violated the ‘knock-and-announce’ rule. See 18 U.S.C. § 3109. But that rule applies only when officers enter by force; here, they were invited in.

granted Feb. 24, 2003)(case below: 282 F.3d 699 (9 th Cir.))Questions Presented:Did law enforcement officers executing warrant to search for illegal drugs violate Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered small apartment in middle of afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence?Oral argument was heard on October 15, 2003. Click here to view Petitioner's Merits Brief.

United States v. Banks, 02-473 (cert. granted Feb. 24, 2003)(case below: 282 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.))Questions Presented:Did law enforcement officers executing warrant to search for illegal drugs violate Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered small apartment in middle of afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence?Yarborough v. Alvarado, 02-1684 (cert. granted September 30, 2003)(case below: (9th Cir.)) (cert petition)Questions Presented:Cert granted on whether a special standard determines whether juveniles are "in custody" for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona.