Appeals court OKs no-knock warrant as perfectly appropriate

[Declan McCullagh]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, 
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4494

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


September 24, 2003, Argued
November 20, 2003, Decided


OUTCOME: Defendant's convictions and sentence were affirmed.



As Judge Widener has recently recognized, the knock and announce 
requirement serves three purposes: "(1) protecting the safety of occupants 
of a dwelling and the police by reducing violence; (2) preventing the 
destruction of property; and (3) protecting the privacy of occupants." 
United States v. Dunnock, 295 F.3d 431, 434 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bonner 
v. Anderson, 81 F.3d 472, 475 (4th Cir. 1996)).

We have recognized that, HN6[]under appropriate exigent circumstances, 
strict compliance with the knock and announce requirement may be excused. 
United States v. Grogins, 163 F.3d 795, 797 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding 
no-knock entry justified where officers had reasonable suspicion that 
entering drug "stash house" would be dangerous and drug dealer frequenting 
house could not be found elsewhere). When the authorities "have a 
reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence ...would 
be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective 
investigation of []crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of the 
evidence," an entry without knocking [*13]  is justified. Richards, 520 
U.S. at 394; see also United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 140 L. Ed. 2d 
191, 118 S. Ct. 992 (1998) (upholding no-knock entry where suspect had 
violent past, access to weapons, and vowed not to do "federal time").

In this situation, the state court judge made a specific determination that 
the circumstances explained in the Overfield Affidavit justified the 
issuance of a no-knock search warrant. As the Overfield Affidavit recounts, 
Wardrick had a violent criminal history, including a battery conviction 
stemming from resisting arrest. Moreover, the affidavit suggested that 
Wardrick, a convicted felon, illegally possessed firearms. Indeed, Wardrick 
had threatened, in the presence of Det. Overfield, that he always carried a 
loaded gun and that he "never missed." Lastly, Det. Overfield reasonably 
believed that Wardrick would be present when the warrant was executed. As 
the Overfield Affidavit reflects, several records indicated that 1808 
Division Street was Wardrick's primary residence, and two automobiles 
registered in his name had been parked outside the residence only days 
before the search warrant was secured.

Based on [*14]  our review of the Overfield Affidavit, we agree with the 
district court that it was reasonable for Det. Overfield and the state 
court to believe that execution of the search warrant would be dangerous. 
See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40-41 n. 12, 10 L. Ed. 2d 726, 83 S. 
Ct. 1623 (1963) HN7[](determining lawfulness of entry depends on "what the 
officers had reason to believe at the time of their entry") (emphasis in 
original). In such circumstances, the issuance of the no-knock search 
warrant was justified, and the district court did not err in declining to 
suppress the evidence on this basis.