Editorial: A common-sense ruling

Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2003 | 9 a.m.

Five years ago North Las Vegas police officers and FBI agents, in possession of a search warrant, knocked loudly on the door of a man suspected of possessing drugs. When the man didn't answer, they waited 15 to 20 seconds, then burst in. Cocaine and guns were found and the man, LaShawn Banks, was sentenced to prison. He was later freed -- pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court -- after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the police acted too quickly in entering his home. The appeals court said the police lacked any urgent reason for barging in. Banks argued that he had been in the shower and simply had not heard the officers.

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court clarified an important point. The possibility that a suspect may stall officers for the purpose of destroying evidence is an urgent reason to break through a door, the high court ruled. The court found that if officers wait 15 or 20 seconds after clearly announcing their presence, a suspect's rights have not been violated.

The court provided this common-sense clarification, while still holding that such incidents be judged on a case-by-case basis to ensure that police officers acted reasonably. In our view, the decision was correct. Search warrants in many cases would be ineffective if the suspect could simply stay behind a locked door until he had time to destroy evidence.

archive