Richards v. Wisconsin

Both civil libertarians and upholders of law and order found something to applaud in the balance Justice Stevens had applied in Richards. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), which had provided Richards's defense, issued a statement on 28 April 1997 calling the Court's decision "a victory for the Fourth Amendment." Despite the fact that their client had not gained the relief he sought, the two organizations expressed pleasure with the Court's decision not to uphold the blanket exception. Certainly police officers and others on the "law and order" side could appreciate the Court's willingness to uphold certain exceptions to the knock and announce rule. In an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin article published prior to the Court's decision in Richards, Michael J. Bulzomi made the government's case obliquely by noting the many perils officers face when approaching a suspect's dwelling. "A police officer making a high-risk warrant entry," Bulzomi wrote, "is not on an even playing field with the occupants of the premises . . . [T]he armed occupants know what they intend to do, whereas the officers can only infer whether [they] intend to fight, flee, or surrender." Perhaps because of such perils, "The point of entry into a house, be it a door or a window, is referred to as the fatal funnel." Ira Mickenberg in The National Law Journal reviewed the decision as one of several in the 1996-97 term that favored police and prosecutors.