The Associated Press 3/24/97 By RICHARD CARELLI Court eyes noknock cop entries WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court seemed to give serious consideration Monday to letting police enter homes without announcing themselves if they have court warrants to search for drugs. In a lively debate over a Madison, Wis., drug raid, the court contemplated creating a blanket exception to its 1995 ruling that said noknock entries usually are unlawful. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that the court recently ruled that police officers can, if they deem it necessary for selfprotection, order all passengers out of vehicles stopped for routine traffic violations. ``Isn't this just as sensible?'' he asked about allowing noknock entries. But some justices wondered aloud whether such an exception would swallow the 1995 rule. ``Aren't we just gutting what we said a couple of years ago?'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. While it was clear the court does not want to endanger officers' lives unnecessarily, the justices voiced frustration about the lack of statistical guidance. ``As far as we know, (police) are as apt to be hurt if they don't knock and announce as if they do,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. The Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed noknock searches in all felony drug cases when it upheld Steiney Richards' drug conviction. Madison police did not knock on the door to Richards' hotel room before bursting in on him at 3:40 a.m. on Dec. 31, 1991. Richards, a 19yearold from Detroit, was arrested after jumping out a window. Police found 120 packets of cocaine in his hotel room. He eventually was sentenced to 13 years in prison. The Wisconsin court ruled that an emergency always exists when police searches are linked to ``felonious drug delivery'' because drug dealers often carry weapons and try to destroy the evidence before police can get to it. ``This court gave the state courts an inch and the Wisconsin Supreme Court took a mile,'' argued Richards' lawyer, David R. Karpe of Madison. He said the state court ruling ``drained all the blood out of'' the 1995 decision generally disfavoring noknock entries. But Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle called the state court ruling ``a commonsense determination in light of the modernday drug trade.'' ``Drugdealing is illegal commerce ... marked by danger and violence,'' Doyle said. ``It is characterized by weapons, a willingness to use weapons ... gang violence.'' Karpe appeared in trouble when he argued that police should not be allowed to discard the knockandannounce rule even if they have a good reason to believe there are weapons on the premises to be searched for drugs. Police might have to prove also that the people on those premises are violent, he contended. ``These are violent people with automatic weapons rather than peaceful people with automatic weapons?'' Justice Antonin Scalia asked in taunting tones. Karpe's response that ``some people collect automatic weapons'' eventually drew an ``Are you serious?'' response from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. But Karpe managed to oneup Scalia when the justice challenged his contention that police worried about destruction of evidence could turn off a home's water before entering it. That would still allow one flush of a toilet, Scalia pointed out as the courtroom audience laughed. ``I'm not arguing for the oneflush rule,'' Karpe replied with a straight face while the laughter grew louder. Clinton administration lawyer Miguel Estrada argued in favor of allowing noknock searches of homes whenever police reasonably believe they will be endangered or that drugs will be destroyed in the 10 to 20 seconds between knocking and entering. Such an approach likely would allow noknock entries in most drug raids. A decision is expected by July. The case is Richards vs. Wisconsin, 965955.