United States v. Weaver, No. 13-3097 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. At issue was whether the exclusionary rule is applicable when law enforcement officers violate the Fourth Amendment’s knock-and-announce rule while executing a warrant to arrest a suspect found at home. The court analyzed the factors the Supreme Court considered in Hudson v. Michigan to determine whether the exclusionary rule applies when the knock-and-announce rule is violated in the arrest warrant context. The court considered whether the violation causes the seizure of evidence such that evidentiary suppression furthers the interests underlying the knock-and-announce rule, and whether the benefits of applying the exclusionary rule outweigh its costs. Examining those factors, the court concluded that exclusion was the appropriate remedy here, where officers executing a warrant for defendant’s arrest sought him at home, violated the knock-and-announce rule, and discovered defendant’s marijuana upon their forced entry into defendant’s apartment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.