Richards v. Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin police had been investigating Steiney Richards for some time before they obtained a warrant to search his hotel room on the last day of 1991. They suspected Richards of conducting illegal drug sales out of his room, and had requested a warrant that would give them authorization for "no knock" entry--that is, a warrant which would permit them to enter the room without knocking on the door. It was an advantage the officers believed they needed, because Richards would otherwise be able to destroy evidence or flee before they could make an arrest. The magistrate, however, denied their request.

Proceeding with an ordinary warrant requiring them to "knock and announce," the officers arrived at Richard's room at 3:40 a.m., presumably on 1 January 1992. Dressed as a maintenance man, Officer Pharo, the team leader, approached the door. Around and behind him stood several others, at least one of them in a police uniform. When Pharo knocked on the door, a voice from inside asked who was there, and Pharo responded that he was the maintenance man. Richards slowly cracked the door, with the chain still on it.

The next sequence of events would be disputed, but apparently as soon as he saw the uniformed officer behind Pharo, Richards slammed the door shut. Two or three seconds later, the officers began kicking the door down, shouting all the while--according to their later testimony--that they were police officers. Finally entering the room after breaking through the door, the officers caught Richards attempting to flee through a window, and a search revealed cash and cocaine hidden above the tiles in the bathroom ceiling.

At the subsequent trial, Richards filed a motion seeking suppression of the evidence from his hotel room on the grounds that the officers had not knocked or announced their presence before forcing their way into his dwelling. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the strange behavior Richards exhibited in opening and then rapidly closing the door justified the police officers' reaction. Given the disposable nature of the drugs involved, the judge noted, the police were justified in making their way across the threshold as quickly as they could.

Richards appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which affirmed the ruling of the lower court. They used as their guide the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Wilson, and reviewed this in light of their own decision in State v. Stevens (1995). In the latter case, the Wisconsin high court held that "when the police have a search warrant, supported by probable cause, to search a residence for evidence of delivery of drugs or evidence of possession with intent to deliver drugs, they necessarily have reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances exist." That would justify a no knock entry. Wilson did not negate Stevens; it was possible to apply exceptions to the knock and announce rule. This is so particularly in light of "today's drug culture," which often involves violence, as well as substances such as cocaine that could be rapidly destroyed by flushing them down the toilet. Felony drug crimes involve "an extremely high risk of serious if not deadly injury to the police as well as the potential for the disposal of drugs by the occupants prior to entry by the police," the court held.