## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Winston Bryant McConney in a broader RICO investigation involving the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club.
- Federal officers obtained warrants to arrest McConney and to search his residence for evidence of affiliation with the organization.
- Agents approached McConney’s home in the evening; the outer front door was open and a closed screen door separated the agents from the living room.
- An agent knocked, announced identity and purpose, and observed McConney and another person inside.
- Without waiting for an explicit refusal or response, the agent opened the screen door and entered with other agents, ordering both occupants to the floor and handcuffing them.
- During the entry and securing of the scene, an agent found a loaded pistol under a sofa cushion.
- McConney, a convicted felon, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) for receiving firearms shipped in interstate commerce; the pistol was central evidence.
- McConney moved to suppress the pistol, claiming the entry violated the federal knock-notice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3109, because officers entered without waiting to be refused admittance.
- The district court denied suppression, concluding exigent circumstances justified immediate entry; McConney was convicted on stipulated facts and appealed.

## Issues

1. What standard of appellate review applies to a district court’s determination that exigent circumstances excused compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3109: clearly erroneous or de novo?
2. Under the proper standard of review, did the circumstances at McConney’s residence constitute exigent circumstances excusing the officers’ failure to wait for refusal before entering?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit (en banc) held that whether exigent circumstances exist is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo on appeal.
- The court maintained clear-error review for underlying historical facts found by the district court.
- Applying de novo review to the established facts, the court agreed exigent circumstances existed and affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
- McConney’s conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review separates (a) historical facts (clear-error review) from (b) the legal characterization of those facts under a governing standard.
- Whether facts amount to “exigent circumstances” is a mixed question requiring application of legal principles to established facts and is reviewed de novo.
- De novo review is favored for mixed questions with significant Fourth Amendment and policy content to support uniformity and consistent articulation of constitutional standards.
- Exigent circumstances may excuse compliance with § 3109’s knock-notice requirements when officer-safety concerns or risk of evidence destruction makes waiting unreasonable.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that exigent-circumstances determinations excusing knock-notice compliance are reviewed de novo as mixed questions of law and fact, while historical facts remain subject to clear-error review; applying that standard, it affirmed the warrant entry, denied suppression, and upheld McConney’s conviction.


United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc)