Question First, Warning Later
At 6:15 a.m. four officers execute a search warrant at Delroy Simms's rented house. The warrant, issued six months earlier, authorizes a search for "stolen laptop computers and related packaging" and rests on a confidential informant who reported seeing "several new laptops" in the house. The affidavit says only that the informant "has provided information in the past." Officers knock, announce "police, search warrant," and force the door after five seconds. In the kitchen they find 12 grams of cocaine and a stolen laptop still in its box. Simms, handcuffed in a patrol car, is questioned for 80 minutes, then read Miranda rights. He says: "Fine, the coke is mine, but I want a lawyer."
1. Simms moves to suppress the cocaine and the laptop because the officers waited only five seconds before forcing the door. Assess the motion.
Read the worked answer
Two questions must be separated: was the entry unlawful, and does that unlawfulness suppress the evidence?
Was it unlawful? The knock-and-announce requirement comes from the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard. The permissible wait turns on what officers knew about the likelihood evidence would be destroyed. In United States v. Banks, 15 to 20 seconds was reasonable for a daytime drug search. Five seconds, on a warrant targeting durable goods, is very short - courts routinely find that inadequate. Assume for argument the entry was unlawful.
Does that matter? Substantially less than the motion assumes. Hudson v. Michigan holds that a knock-and-announce violation does not require suppression, because the interests protected - dignity, property damage, avoiding violence - have nothing to do with the seizure of evidence. The exclusionary rule is not the remedy.
Advise the client: the suppression motion likely fails on the remedy even if he wins the merits. His real claims are a § 1983 action for the broken door and a suppression motion aimed at the warrant (staleness, informant reliability), not at the manner of entry. Do not conflate these in the brief.
2. Simms also argues the six-month-old warrant is stale and that the affidavit is thin. How should the court be expected to rule?
Read the worked answer
Staleness is a weak argument on these facts. Staleness asks whether probable cause still existed when the warrant issued. Courts weigh the durability of the item and the nature of the place. Stolen laptops are durable, retain value, and are commonly kept for months; a residence is a stable location. Six months is within the range courts have sustained for durable stolen property.
Reliability is the stronger argument. "Has provided information in the past" states a conclusion with no basis of knowledge and no track record. Under Illinois v. Gates the magistrate applies a totality-of-the-circumstances test, and a bare recital of past reliability without explaining the informant's basis of knowledge is exactly what courts criticize.
But anticipate Leon. If the warrant is technically defective, United States v. Leon still admits the evidence unless the affidavit is "so lacking in indicia of probable cause" that no reasonable officer could rely on it, or the magistrate abandoned the neutral role. An affidavit describing an identified tip and observed laptops will usually fall on the Leon side.
Practical prediction: the cocaine and laptop survive suppression. Raise the affidavit defect to preserve the issue, but do not promise the client exclusion.
3. Should the statement "the coke is mine" be suppressed? Address both the question-first sequence and the request for counsel, and say what happens to the physical evidence.
Read the worked answer
Custody is clear. Handcuffed in a patrol car is custodial interrogation; Miranda applies from the first question.
The question-first sequence. 80 minutes of unwarned interrogation followed by a mid-stream warning and an immediate admission is reviewed under Missouri v. Seibert. Where the earlier questioning was continuous, by the same officers, and the warning could not function effectively to convey real rights, the post-warning statement is suppressed. Compare Oregon v. Elstad, where a brief, non-coercive earlier remark left no taint. Here the length, the setting, and the momentum favor suppression.
The request for counsel. Under Edwards v. Arizona, an unambiguous request for a lawyer requires all questioning to stop until counsel is present or the accused reinitiates. The statement preceded the request, so the invocation does not reach backwards - it does, however, bar any further questioning from that moment.
The physical evidence is untouched. Miranda regulates testimonial compulsion; it does not suppress the cocaine or laptop, which were recovered under a search warrant, not from Simms's mouth. The suppression motion, at best, knocks out the admission only.