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").
So, how does a non-criminal citizen protect themselves against armed home invaders who break down their front door or crash through a window to gain entry? Are citizens liable for injuries and deaths to law enforcement personnel who use such unannounced methods (esp. in the early morning hours)?
I know that there have been cases which determined that its illegal to use an indiscriminate weapon (e.g., a shotgun tied to a door) to deter such entries, but what about a discriminate, automated, weapon system? By coupling night vision optics and a video pickup, image recognition software, a robotic gimbal and an semi-automatic firearm, such a system could discriminate forced entry situations from more normal entry means, target intruders and initiate deterrence. What then?
steve
