Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 | 11:27 a.m.
WASHINGTON -- Las Vegas lawyer Randall Roske asked the Supreme Court this morning if everyone's front door is worth just 15 seconds.
The answer could determine if a North Las Vegas man will have to go back to jail.
Roske, a lawyer for North Las Vegas resident Lashawn Lowell Banks, argued before the nine Supreme Court justices today that the 15 to 20 seconds police waited before ramming Banks' door in 1998 was not enough time to justify breaking it down and collecting evidence eventually used against him.
Banks was arrested and jailed in 1998 based on three guns and cocaine that police and the FBI found when they burst into the 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 had been in the shower so he did not hear the police at the door.
He received an 11-year prison sentence, but was released after four years when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2002 that the police did not wait long enough before entering his home. He now works in Las Vegas.
Banks was not present at today's court hearing because of work conflicts. He declined comment Tuesday to the Sun.
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."
David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, who argued for the government today, said officers must take the "totality of the circumstances" into consideration when they are standing outside a door with a search warrant.
He cited previous opinions by the court and common understanding of the law to show that the circuit's ruling should not stand.
The justices questions Salmons on a variety of details of the law, including whether a set time frame would allow suspects to destroy evidence by flushing drugs by the toilet or getting rid of them in some other way.
Salmons explained that the officers at the back door could hear the officers knock on the front door, but the fact that evidence could be destroyed still needs to be taken into account since it is readily disposable.
He said the delay in this case was not "close to the constitutional line."
But Roske argued that the real question of the case is whether someone's door is worth 15 seconds, since police officers could break it down if a resident did not answer the door in time.
Justice Antonin Scalia asked about the relevance of Banks being in the shower and said that that fact should not determine what is a reasonable time.
But Roske explained that in a 24-hour town such as Las Vegas, it is likely someone could be sleeping or showering in the middle of the day and unable to get to the door, so this should have been a consideration.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it is possible to answer a ringing telephone in 15 to 20 seconds, so why not come to the door? She later added that the police knew the warrant was for drugs "and not grand pianos."
Roske responded that people are often engaged in other activities, like being in the shower, that make them miss a call.
He could not recommend an exact time frame but said something must established when officers are confronted with silence at the door.
After the hearing he said it was "hard to read" what the justices may decide but that, based on questions they asked Salmons, it appeared they were "struggling with the issue."
"It seems the commode is very relevant but the shower is not as relevant," Roske said.
He added that he doubted that justices would define a set time frame.
"It's not going to be seeing a 'x' numbers of seconds for searches," he said.
If the court says the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, Banks would have to go back to prison to serve the remaining seven years of his sentence, Roske said.
Roske said the opinion could come down in the few months.
The circuit court 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.
The opinion outlined different tests for determining how long officers must wait after knocking and announcing their presence.
archive
