TheeBadOne
Member
LaShawn Banks says the shower drowned out the noise of police banging on his apartment door before he stepped out of the bathroom, naked and soapy, to find masked, heavily armed officers in his home.
The North Las Vegas police found 11 ounces of crack and three guns during the 1998 raid, and Banks was found guilty and served four years of an 11-year prison sentence before his conviction was overturned on appeal.
Today the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments that could set the standard for how long police with a warrant have to wait between knocking on a suspect's door and breaking it down.
"A man's home is his castle," said Banks' lawyer, Randall Roske. "A citizen has the right to respond to the door and assure themselves that the person at the door is actually a law enforcement officer."
Police testified they waited 15 or 20 seconds and did not hear a response before breaking down Banks' door. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that was not enough time, and ruled that police violated Banks' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.
The 9th Circuit noted there are no set rules about how long police must wait before using force to enter. It said officers should consider such factors as the time of day, the nature of the crime, and any other observations that might lead them to conclude they should enter immediately.
The court said officers should wait "a significant amount of time" before making a non-forced entry, and a "more substantial amount of time" between knock and entry if property would be destroyed - that is, if the door is going to be broken down.
The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that police should not be forced to give a suspect time to grab a gun, flush drugs down the toilet or flee. The administration said the 9th Circuit rule would have "the perverse effect of encouraging criminals to barricade their doors."
Rory Little, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, called the 9th Circuit standard "too complex and abstract for officers to easily apply on the scene." He predicted the Supreme Court would allow police more discretion.
"I think they're going to say it can't be done on a stopwatch," Little said, "and they'll give substantial deference to the officer on the scene."
Geoffrey Alpert, a criminology profess or at the University of South Carolina, agreed.
"If this case had come before 9-11 or with another (circuit) court, it would have been different," Alpert said, citing the liberal reputation of the San Francisco-based federal court. "I think they're going to erode some of the citizens' rights from the 9th Circuit and give them to police."
Banks, 26, used a jail library to research whether his rights were violated. He fired two lawyers before hiring Roske to appeal to the 9th Circuit, best known for its recent rulings on California's recall election and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roske said the case "will end up defining a lot of innocent people's rights" - and also determine whether Banks remains free.
"He stumbles out, soapy, dripping wet and naked, and sees these intruders, masked and armed with automatic weaponry," the lawyer said. "That has to strike terror in the heart of a man. He had no idea who these people were."
Banks insisted he has gone drug-free, working as a truck driver for a tile company and providing for his girlfriend and his three children.
http://www.worknews.pwpl.com/respond.htm
The North Las Vegas police found 11 ounces of crack and three guns during the 1998 raid, and Banks was found guilty and served four years of an 11-year prison sentence before his conviction was overturned on appeal.
Today the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments that could set the standard for how long police with a warrant have to wait between knocking on a suspect's door and breaking it down.
"A man's home is his castle," said Banks' lawyer, Randall Roske. "A citizen has the right to respond to the door and assure themselves that the person at the door is actually a law enforcement officer."
Police testified they waited 15 or 20 seconds and did not hear a response before breaking down Banks' door. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that was not enough time, and ruled that police violated Banks' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.
The 9th Circuit noted there are no set rules about how long police must wait before using force to enter. It said officers should consider such factors as the time of day, the nature of the crime, and any other observations that might lead them to conclude they should enter immediately.
The court said officers should wait "a significant amount of time" before making a non-forced entry, and a "more substantial amount of time" between knock and entry if property would be destroyed - that is, if the door is going to be broken down.
The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that police should not be forced to give a suspect time to grab a gun, flush drugs down the toilet or flee. The administration said the 9th Circuit rule would have "the perverse effect of encouraging criminals to barricade their doors."
Rory Little, a professor at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, called the 9th Circuit standard "too complex and abstract for officers to easily apply on the scene." He predicted the Supreme Court would allow police more discretion.
"I think they're going to say it can't be done on a stopwatch," Little said, "and they'll give substantial deference to the officer on the scene."
Geoffrey Alpert, a criminology profess or at the University of South Carolina, agreed.
"If this case had come before 9-11 or with another (circuit) court, it would have been different," Alpert said, citing the liberal reputation of the San Francisco-based federal court. "I think they're going to erode some of the citizens' rights from the 9th Circuit and give them to police."
Banks, 26, used a jail library to research whether his rights were violated. He fired two lawyers before hiring Roske to appeal to the 9th Circuit, best known for its recent rulings on California's recall election and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roske said the case "will end up defining a lot of innocent people's rights" - and also determine whether Banks remains free.
"He stumbles out, soapy, dripping wet and naked, and sees these intruders, masked and armed with automatic weaponry," the lawyer said. "That has to strike terror in the heart of a man. He had no idea who these people were."
Banks insisted he has gone drug-free, working as a truck driver for a tile company and providing for his girlfriend and his three children.
http://www.worknews.pwpl.com/respond.htm
