Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Harada

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 2002No. 22356Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

RAMIL, J.

My disagreement with the majority centers on the proper scope of the knock and announce rule. Here, Harada voluntarily opened the door three-feet-wide (or three-quarters of the way open). After realizing that officers were outside, Harada attempted to close the door. In response, Officer Ber-mudes entered and prevented the door from being shut.1 I believe that the door in this case is “open” for purposes of the knock and announce statute2 and, therefore, the subsequent use of force in keeping the door open must be analyzed under the constitutional reasonableness…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Gouled v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. Richards v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. Wilson v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API