## Facts

- Police investigated suspected methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution at a large rented, multi-level residence in Thompson Falls, Montana, occupied by Tanya Marie Anyan, Jay Cleveland, and Troy Klein (among others).
- Officer Christopher Nichols sought and obtained a search warrant (July 24, 2000) based on surveillance showing unusual traffic, associations with persons having drug/violent histories, Klein’s outstanding felony warrants, and a security camera pointed toward the driveway.
- The warrant application did not request no-knock authority, and the warrant did not authorize a no-knock entry.
- Officers planned a nighttime raid using two SWAT teams and executed the warrant around 2:00 a.m.
- Immediately before entry, an officer saw a car arrive; the driver shouted toward the house for everyone to get inside and turn off the lights.
- Officers forcibly entered without knocking or announcing identity and purpose, breaching doors/windows nearly simultaneously.
- Inside, officers found evidence consistent with a methamphetamine lab (chemicals, equipment, and product) and arrested occupants including Anyan, Cleveland, and Klein.
- Defendants moved to suppress, arguing the no-knock entry violated Montana constitutional rights to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the district court denied suppression.
- Defendants entered guilty pleas under agreements that preserved appellate review of the suppression ruling and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether officers’ no-knock entry to execute a search warrant violated the occupants’ Montana constitutional rights to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the order denying suppression and remanded.
- The court held the no-knock entry was unconstitutional under the Montana Constitution.
- The court concluded officers lacked a particularized, case-specific reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would create danger or lead to destruction of evidence.
- The court further concluded that, on these facts, executing a no-knock entry without prior judicial authorization was improper, and suppression was required.

## Legal Principles

- Execution of a residential search warrant ordinarily requires knock-and-announce under the Montana Constitution.
- A no-knock entry is permitted only with particularized, case-specific reasonable suspicion that announcement would create a threat of physical harm or a likelihood of evidence destruction.
- Generalized factors (criminal histories, outstanding warrants, a security camera, unconfirmed firearms concerns, house size/occupancy) do not alone justify dispensing with knock-and-announce absent case-specific exigency.
- At the time of this decision, no-knock authority was expected to be presented to and authorized by the issuing judge based on sworn facts in the warrant application; leaving the decision solely to officers risked unreasonable intrusions into home privacy.
- Evidence obtained through an unconstitutional no-knock execution is subject to suppression as the remedy for the unreasonable search.

## Conclusion

The court held that forcibly entering a home without knock-and-announce to execute a warrant not authorizing such entry violated Montana’s constitutional protections where the State showed only generalized safety and evidence-destruction concerns, requiring suppression of the resulting evidence and remand for further proceedings.


State v. Anyan, 104 P.3d 511 (Mont. 2004)