Talk:Wilson v. Arkansas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wilson v. Arkansas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arkansas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== Article issues ==

Untitled

The article appears to be a straight copy of the Supreme Court's opinion as delivered by Justice Thomas. Is this more appropriate for Wikisource? • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm going to check into the process. Rklear (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case does not accurately state the holding of the case. The court did not lay out a per se rule requiring police to always knock and announce before entering a home. Rather, they just said it is one element of the inquiry into the reasonableness of the search. In fact, the Court specifically articulated certain circumstances where knocking and announcing would be unnecessary. These include circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence, cases where a prisoner escapes from a police officer and retreats to his dwelling, and where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given. It is up to the lower courts to determine what other circumstances justify retreat from the knock and announce practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.183.33 (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The holding in the 10 October 2010 version of the article is misleading. I would suggest that a better first sentence might be: "Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the common-law knock and announce principle forms a part of the 4th Amendment reasonableness inquiry." Justice Thomas' opinion in the case reads: "We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the lower courts as to whether the common-law knock and announce principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. We hold that it does, and accordingly, reverse and remand." Oxrcommuter (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more context: sharlene wilson was set up by corrupt officials

in the secret life of bill clinton, 1997, p 259, journalist ambrose evans-pritchard writes about the context of this case. she was a whistleblower who had dirt about cocaine dealing linked to various arkansas officials. she was set up on drug charges to reduce her credibility. the prosecutor, dan harmon, was her ex, and was later himself prosecuted.

70.63.54.34 (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)gtbear at gmail.com[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Don_Henry_and_Kevin_Ives mentions harmon as involved in these killings and that he was a drug dealer. 70.63.54.34 (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]