Shipley

United States v. Shipley

Good Law
45 F. App'x 706
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 28, 2002No. 01-10180; D.C. No. CR-00-00051-KJDCalifornia673 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The police did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 when they entered Shipley’s residence with a warrant' but without first knocking and announcing. Police learned from three confidential informants and their own investigation that Shipley was illegally manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine, that he was heavily armed and prone to violence as a prospective member of the Hell’s Angels gang, and that he had a long criminal history, which included convictions for battery and drug offenses. This combination of factors- — -a far cry from the sort of “generalizations and stereotypes” disapproved in our cases, see, e.g., United States v. Granville, 222 F.3d 1214, 1219 (9th Cir.2000)— is sufficient to constitute exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry. We have excused the police from knocking and announcing under similar circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Hudson, 100 *708 F.3d 1409, 1417 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that the no-knock but warranted entry was justified when agents knew that the defendant sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant, had a prior drug offense conviction, and stored firearms and easily destroyable drug paraphernalia on the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.