## Facts

- Police in Sunrise, Florida investigated Anthony Diotaiuto for suspected marijuana and cocaine trafficking, including surveillance and a controlled buy.
- Officers received information that Diotaiuto routinely carried a handgun and kept a loaded shotgun in his bedroom closet.
- A state judge issued a search warrant for the residence shared by Diotaiuto and his mother, Marlene Whittier.
- The warrant was treated as “high risk,” and a SWAT team was assigned; the written operational plan described drugs and firearms and contemplated a knock-and-announce entry.
- During execution, Officer Daniel Kobayashi was the SWAT “point man.”
- The parties disputed whether officers knocked and announced before forced entry; officers said they announced while breaching, while neighbors reported hearing the breach before any announcement or no announcement at all.
- A gunfight occurred inside the home, and Diotaiuto was shot and killed.

## Issues

1. Whether Kobayashi was entitled to qualified immunity on a § 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violation during execution of the search warrant.
2. Whether, assuming an unannounced entry, the known combination of suspected drug trafficking and readily accessible firearms gave at least arguable reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment and held Kobayashi was entitled to qualified immunity.
- The court treated disputed facts about whether a knock-and-announce occurred as non-dispositive for qualified immunity, assuming the plaintiffs’ version (no effective knock-and-announce) for purposes of the appeal.
- Given intelligence that Diotaiuto dealt drugs and had ready access to firearms, a reasonable officer could have believed knocking and announcing would increase the risk of violence.
- The SWAT operational plan’s contemplation of knock-and-announce did not defeat qualified immunity because the constitutional inquiry is objective and not controlled by internal protocols.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the qualified-immunity ruling.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment generally requires officers executing a search warrant to knock, announce presence and purpose, and wait a reasonable time before forcible entry, unless exigent circumstances make those steps dangerous, futile, or likely to impair the investigation (including by permitting destruction of evidence).
- In a § 1983 suit, an officer is protected by qualified immunity unless the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right.
- For knock-and-announce claims, qualified immunity applies if the officer had at least “arguable” reasonable suspicion that exigent circumstances existed; the question is whether a reasonable officer could have believed a no-knock (or abbreviated knock) entry was justified.
- The presence of suspected drug trafficking combined with known, accessible firearms can support arguable reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous.
- Deviation from internal law-enforcement plans or policies does not itself establish a Fourth Amendment violation or defeat qualified immunity.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that, even assuming officers did not properly knock and announce, Kobayashi was entitled to qualified immunity because the known combination of drug trafficking and accessible firearms provided arguable reasonable suspicion that a traditional knock-and-announce would be dangerous, and the law did not clearly forbid an unannounced entry in those circumstances.


Whittier v. Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2009)