Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

U.S. Supreme Court to review NLV case involving search and seizure

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could affect how search warrants are served, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a North Las Vegas case to determine how long police should wait before entering a suspect's home after they've knocked on the door.

The Bush administration is asking the court to overturn a lower court decision that the Fourth Amendment rights of Lashawn Lowell Banks were violated when the North Las Vegas Police Department and the FBI rammed down his front door while he was in the shower.

Officers found cocaine and guns during their search of Banks' apartment on July 15, 1998. A District Court judge allowed the evidence to be used in a trial that led to an 11-year prison sentence for Banks.

In March 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the drugs found in Banks' home could not be used as evidence because police did not wait a "reasonable time" for Banks to respond to police demands for entrance.

Banks was released after serving four years and is working at a Las Vegas marble and tile company.

"My client was deprived of even answering the door without a towel. I couldn't imagine a more humiliating or embarrassing predicament for an individual," said Randall Roske, Banks' attorney.

"This case is not about guilty people getting off," Roske said. "We as a free society have a right to security and privacy."

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizures.

John Wesley Hall Jr., a Little Rock, Ark., attorney who sits on the board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said Banks' case could have ramifications for police searches across the country.

"It means 15 seconds is all you get to answer the door or your door comes down with a battering ram, and who can answer the door in 15 seconds?" Hall said. "Every man is a potential victim of this type of entry."

Roske said a reversal would mean Banks could be sent back to jail for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute and possessing a gun.

In the government's brief, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued that the officers were justified in entering the apartment because drug suspects often attempt to destroy narcotics or they retrieve weapons while police are kept waiting at the door.

"Officers need not let a prolonged delay frustrate the purpose of the search or expose them to undue danger," Olson stated.

The Justice Department added that the appeals court decision "threatens to complicate and confuse the process of executing search warrants, and to subject law enforcement personnel to unnecessary and unacceptable risks in the process."

The Supreme Court will hear arguments starting in October. The case probably will be decided in 2004.