Mazepink v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that mere technical compliance with the “knock and announce” requirement, absent demonstrated exigent circumstances, was not sufficient
• rejecting the State's argument that the exclusion of evidence seized in violation of the knock and announce rule was not appropriate as the evidence would have been inevitably discovered
• suppression appropriate even though police officers testified as to their general experience in serving drug search warrants
• “We reject the State’s argument that exclusion of the evidence is not appropriate because the evidence would have been inevitably discovered by legal means (the search warrant) despite the illegal entry”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).