4.2.13

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 4.2.13 Knock and Announce

1. General Rule. The Arizona and federal knock and announce principles are discussed below. A defendant who was not present when the warrant was executed has no standing to challenge the officer’s failure to comply with knock and announce requirement. See “Defendant Must Have Standing to Challenge Execution of Warrant,” infra. A violation of knock and announce principles does not warrant suppression of evidence seized as a result of a valid warrant. Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006); State v. Roberson, 223 Ariz. 580, 225 P.3d 1156 (App. 2010) (Div. 1) (rejecting defendant’s argument that the Arizona Constitution provides broader protection than the Fourth Amendment in the context of Hudson knock and announce decision).

2. Arizona. In 2000, the Arizona legislature amended the knock-and-announce provisions to permit a magistrate to authorize a “no-knock” or “unannounced entry” search warrant. See A.R.S. § 13-3915(B) (“On a reasonable showing that an announced entry to execute the warrant would endanger the safety of any person or would result in the destruction of any of the items described in the warrant, the magistrate shall authorize an unannounced entry.”) Officers may execute the “no knock” warrant without knocking and announcing their presence, and this is set forth in similarly-amended A.R.S. § 13-3916(B)(3).

In the same year, the legislature also amended § 13-3916 to permit officers to enter without knocking and announcing if there are exigent circumstances. See A.R.S. § 13-3916(B)(4) (officer may enter forcibly if “[t]he particular circumstances and the objective articulable facts are such that a reasonable officer would believe that giving notice of the officer’s authority and purpose before entering would endanger the safety of any person or result in the destruction of evidence”). “[S]ubstantial evidence in a particular case [must] support the finding of exigency justifying forcible entry.” State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001) (court analyzed a pre-amendment exigency issue). [This appears to be a higher standard than the “reasonable suspicion” standard enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court. SeeUnited States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998).] The Arizona Supreme Court also recognized, in analyzing an entry pre-dating the amendment to § 13-3916, that exigent circumstances justifying a forced entry can exist not only when evidence may be destroyed, State v. Bates, 120 Ariz. 561, 563, 587 P.2d 747, 749 (1978), but also when there is a danger to the officers. Nordstrom, supra.

In 2021, the Arizona Supreme Court created a Task Force on Issuing Search Warrants, to “review the process for issuing no-knock and nighttime search warrants in Arizona” and make recommendations to the Arizona Judicial Council to “ensure that there are adequate safeguards in the issuance of these warrants.” AzSCt...