See, e.g., Richards, 520 U.S. at 394 ("In order to justify a `no-knock' entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence . . . would be dangerous or fufile. . . .") Generally, courts find that the knock and announce rule is excused when it would be a "useless gesture' to require the police to knock and announce their presence because the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the occupant of the house is aware of the officer's presence and purpose. See, e.g., United States v. Dunnock, 295 F.3d 431, 435 (4th Cir. 2002) (excusing no-knock entry when defendant arrested outside his home and therefore had functional knowledge of officer's authority and purpose); United States v. Tracy, 835 F.2d 1267, 1270 (8th Cir. 1988) (finding no-knock entry justified when officers justifiably believed that defendants anticipated their presence and knew their purpose); United States v. Shaw, No. 02-4008101/03-SAC, 2002 WL 31926984, at *2-3 (D. Kan. 2002) (excusing no-knock entry when police officer had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant saw him and knew of purpose). Here, the Court finds that it would have been a useless gesture for the officers to knock and announce.
These cases do not support the proposition that officers need not knock and announce their presence and authority and then wait a reasonable time to permit the occupants to respond any time an occupant has merely viewed the officers approaching from outside the area to be searched. {16} The State also relies on the unreported federal district court decision of United States v. Shaw, No. 02–4008101/03–SAC, 2002 WL 31926894 (D.Kan. Nov. 22, 2002), modified on rehearingNos. 02–40081–01–SAC, 02–40081–03–SAC, 2003 WL 356066 (D.Kan. Jan. 23, 2003). In that case, an officer in plain clothes knocked on the door of the residence to be searched, hoping that the occupants would answer voluntarily, without knowing that the person knocking was a police officer.