Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

High court validates NLV police search

WASHINGTON -- A North Las Vegas man will be heading back to prison after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously this morning that police did not violate his rights by waiting only 20 seconds before knocking down his door.

LaShawn Banks, 27, will have to return to jail to finish seven years of his 11-year prison sentence for possession of cocaine and guns, Banks' attorney, Randall Roske, said this morning.

"I'm sure that he may have to surrender ... before Christmas, given the ruling today," said Roske, who argued the cased before the Supreme Court on behalf of Banks on Oct. 15. "I guess he is going to have to quit his job and leave his family and go back to prison for another seven years."

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court reversed a March 2002 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that police violated Banks' rights by not waiting long enough before breaking down this door.

Banks was arrested and jailed in 1998 after a North Las Vegas Narcotics Team and the FBI found three guns and cocaine when they burst into his North Las Vegas apartment. Police knocked on the door once, announcing "police, search warrant" and waited 15 to 20 seconds before knocking down the door, according to court documents.

Banks was in the shower and did not hear the police knock, he said. The police found him dripping wet and naked, coming out of the bathroom when they entered.

A spokesman for the North Las Vegas police said the Supreme Court's ruling upheld the department's long-held policy of announcing officers' presence and then entering after 20 seconds.

"We're glad that the Supreme Court felt this way," Officer Justin Roberts said. "We feel the way that they do, that this is more than enough time to allow someone to answer the door. We feel that any more time would allow him to destroy evidence.

"This is the rule that we have always gone by. You have to give sufficient amount of time for a reasonable person to answer the door.

Banks' attorney had not yet read the decision this morning but called it a travesty.

"This is just another example that the (Fourth) Amendment (protecting citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures) is being rendered meaningless by the Supreme Court," Roske said. "Frankly, we are all losers by this decision.

"My man was in the shower," Roske continued. "He was not chucking drugs down the toilet, and 20 seconds from the shower to the door is not enough time. I respectfully disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court."

Roske said he expects his client to surrender to police as soon as the paperwork goes through. Banks, a father of three, will have to quit his job, Roske said.

"That's unfortunate that he has to say goodbye again," Roske said. "He's a hard-working, honest individual who has learned his lesson from being incarcerated."

Banks also had not heard of the decision this morning and declined to comment until he had spoken with Roske.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said the Supreme Court's ruling leaves police free to knock down doors whenever they wish.

"I think it is disappointing," Lichtenstein said. "The 9th Circuit in its decision that was overturned attempted to devise some guidelines in what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The Supreme Court essentially said we don't want guidelines, we'll take it on a case-by-case basis."

In saying 20 seconds is enough, that it did not violate constitutional rights because evidence could be destroyed, the high court allowed police to make similar arguments in other instances, Lichtenstein said.

"Without clearer guidelines, police will use that logic in all sorts of circumstances to rush into apartments or houses without warrant, and I think that is unfortunate," Lichtenstein said.

The 9th Circuit decision ruled that the search violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of homes and personal property. The court said Banks did not explicitly keep the officers from entering, so the time they waited was not long enough. It also laid out certain tests for police to follow when announcing their presence to search a residence.

But U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying the 9th Circuit decision "creates significant uncertainty -- and needless and potentially dangerous delays -- in a recurring aspect of police practice."

The nine Supreme Court justices thought the 15- to 20-second wait before going into the apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

"We think that after 15 to 20 seconds without a response, police could fairly suspect that cocaine would be gone if they were reticent any longer," Justice David Souter wrote in the court opinion handed down today. "There is no indication that the police knew that Banks was in the shower and thus unaware of an impending search that he would otherwise have tried to frustrate."

The Supreme Court agreed with 9th Circuit Judge Raymond Fisher's dissenting opinion that "this call was a close one."

archive