Hawaii Supreme Court· 9/10/1996

State v. Dixon

Citations

924 P.2d 181
83 Haw. 13
1996 Haw. LEXIS 135

How courts have described this case

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

holding that officers need not demand entrance when using a ruse to persuade an occupant to open a door
holding that officers need not demand entrance after an occupant opened the entry door
stating that “article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution provides broader protection than the [Fjourth [Ajmendment to the United States Constitution because it also protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy”
stating that “article I, section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution provides broader protection than the [F]ourth [A]mendment to the United States Constitution because it also protects against unreasonable invasions of privacy”
stating that “[a]n unannounced intrusion into a dwelling ... is no less an unannounced intrusion whether officers break down a door, force open a chain lock on a partially open door, open a locked door by use of a passkey, or ... open a closed but unlocked door” (citation and emphasis omitted)
purpose of the knock and announce rule are to avoid violence, limit property damage and protection of an individual's right to privacy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moon, Klein, Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.