We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Knock-Notice and the Exclusionary Rule

In the recent case of Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. __ the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence seized with a lawful search warrant but without compliance with the knock-notice rule.

The knock-notice rule has always presented officers with safety issues. The mechanics of knock-notice are easy enough (“Police, open up, we have a warrant!” accompanied by knocking on the door of the residence). The officers must then wait a “reasonable” amount of time until they are admitted or denied entry, the measure of what is “reasonable” being an assessment of how long it would take the occupants to destroy whatever evidence is being sought (U.S. v. Banks [2003] 540 U.S. 31).

The purpose of the knock-notice rule is to avoid violent reactions by occupants who mistake the police for intruders and defend the peace and privacy of their homes with force (Ibid.) The likelihood that occupants are engaged in illegal activities, are expecting the police, and have some objection to seeing their drugs and guns seized as evidence is not part of the equation. As soon as you give knock-notice, the occupants know where you are. You have no idea where they are or what they are doing.

In Hudson v. Michigan the police had a search warrant for guns and drugs which was served on a residence. It was not a “no knock” search warrant because Michigan law doesn’t allow “no knock” search warrants. The police knocked and announced their presence, but waited only a few seconds before entering. The prosecution conceded that this was a violation of the knock-notice rule (and it was), so the sole issue before the court was whether the exclusionary rule should apply.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the exclusionary rule should not apply for two reasons. First, the knock-notice rule only protects the privacy interests of the occupants; there is no corresponding “right” to protect evidence from a lawful search warrant. Second, the exclusionary rule should apply only where its benefits in deterring police misconduct outweigh the substantial social costs of losing the evidence. Applying that balancing test, the majority found that there are other remedies for failure to comply with knock-notice which are less drastic than excluding the evidence altogether. These include civil law suits under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and administrative remedies by the police agencies themselves against individual officers.

Justice Breyer, writing for the dissenters, argued that the failure to comply with knock-notice rendered the entire search unlawful, just as if it had been a warrantless entry and search, so the evidence should have been suppressed. The dissent also worried that without the exclusionary rule, officers would have no incentive at all to comply with the knock-notice rule.

Note that the ruling in this case was close (5-4) and was tied to the fact that the officers had a search warrant. It shouldn’t be read as a license to start ignoring the knock-notice rule. If the United States Supreme Court starts seeing a “widespread pattern of violations” as Justice Kennedy states in his concurring opinion, we could have more case law restricting the police, just as we saw with the disapproved practice of going outside Miranda (continuing to question a suspect after he invokes his Miranda rights).


  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department