October Term 2003 · Docket 02-473
Does a 15-second wait satisfy the knock-and-announce rule?
Police waited 15 to 20 seconds before entering a home. The lower court excluded the evidence found inside.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
David Salmons argued the officers followed proper procedure. He stated they knocked loudly and announced their purpose. He noted they waited at least 15 to 20 seconds. He claimed this satisfied the legal requirement.
Mr. Roske argued the wait was insufficient. He stated the case tests the refusal component of the rule. He claimed the lower court's action deters police misconduct. He argued the door's value exceeds 15 seconds.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the rule applied in 1791. He questioned the historical basis of the government's position. He then closed the oral argument session.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The government wants the court to admit the evidence. The defendant wants the court to keep the evidence out.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 15, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-9
What each side wants
The government wants the court to admit the evidence found in the apartment.
The defendant wants the court to keep the evidence out of the trial.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
What each side says
The government argues the officers followed the law by knocking and waiting.
The defendant argues the wait was too short to protect home privacy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the rule would have applied in 1791.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-9
Why it matters
This case defines how long police must wait before entering a home. It sets the standard for future search warrant executions. It balances law enforcement needs against private home safety.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 5-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 15-60 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 15-60
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 5-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.