Lane v. State (Majority, with Concurring)Annotate this Case
Appellant, a parolee, was charged as a habitual criminal offender with simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest on the basis that officers entered his hotel room without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their presence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the knock-and-announce rule applies to parolees, but the exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy; and (2) despite the knock-and-announce violation, the evidence seized from Appellant should not have been suppressed.