In the case of Steiney Richards v. Wisconsin, 1996, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether police officers are required to knock and announce their presence before entering a home with a search warrant in all cases or if there could be exceptions based on reasonable suspicion of danger or futile delay. The court ruled that while the "knock-and-announce" principle is an element of Fourth Amendment reasonableness, it does not need to be applied universally and can have exceptions under certain circumstances. However, these exceptions cannot simply be generalized categories but must instead rely on specific factors related to each individual case. In this particular instance involving Richards who was convicted for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver after evidence was seized during a no-knock entry by law enforcement officials at his hotel room in Madison, Wisconsin; the court held that lower courts had erred in creating blanket exception for felony drug investigations and remanded back for further proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Steiney Richards v. Wisconsin, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow no-knock entries by police in cases where they believe evidence may be destroyed undermines Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that this blanket rule was too broad and could lead to potential abuses of power by law enforcement officers. Instead, he proposed a more nuanced approach which would require officers to demonstrate specific reasons why knocking and announcing their presence would endanger public safety or risk loss of evidence in each individual case. This way, according to Justice Stevens, citizens' constitutional rights would be better protected while still allowing police flexibility in dangerous situations.