PROVIDENCE — On television, when the police are going to search a house, they immediately show a search warrant to the homeowner.

But when the state police raided the Narragansett Indian smoke shop, a trooper kept the warrant in his back pocket and did not display a copy for somewhere from 10 to 30 minutes into the raid — after tribe members had been arrested and after Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas had repeatedly asked for a warrant.

Legal experts say authorities must show a search warrant at some point, or at least leave a copy of the warrant behind, but they say the police are not required to show a warrant at the outset of a raid, even if someone is demanding to see one.

Still, legal experts say it’s a good idea to show a warrant at the beginning — unless the police believe evidence is being destroyed or a situation is spiraling out of control, placing the police or other people in danger.

The issue arose during the trial of seven Narragansetts accused of resisting arrest and fighting with the police during a July 14, 2003, raid, which stopped the tribe from selling tax-free cigarettes from a roadside store on tribal land in Charlestown.

On Friday, a Superior Court jury returned 4 guilty verdicts and 12 not-guilty verdicts. Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas was found guilty of simple assault but not guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. First Councilman Randy Noka was found guilty of disorderly conduct but not guilty of resisting arrest. Tribal Councilman Hiawatha Brown was found guilty of simple assault and disorderly conduct but not guilty of resisting arrest. Councilman John Brown, Bella Noka, Adam Jennings and tribal conservation officer Thawn Harris were cleared of all charges.

The search warrant issue also arose in 2006 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that, in part, rejected the idea that an officer must present a property owner with a copy of a search warrant before conducting a search. Neither the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution nor the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure impose such a requirement, according to the majority opinion that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the case of United States v. Jeffrey Grubbs.

“The Constitution protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant,” Scalia wrote, “but by interposing … the ‘deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer … between the citizen and the police.’ ”

Justice David Souter agreed with the ruling but only concurred in part with Scalia’s opinion. Souter said that in a 2004 case, the Supreme Court “was careful to note that the right of an owner to demand to see a copy of the warrant before making way for the police had not been determined, and it remains undetermined today.”

So who’s right — Scalia or Souter?

Roger Williams University School of Law associate dean David M. Zlotnick explained that Scalia’s statement was not central to the Grubbs ruling, which addressed whether a search warrant could be issued in anticipation of the delivery of a child-pornography video, so Scalia’s words are merely “dicta.” But since the majority of justices signed on to those words, they indicate a litigant would lose if this Supreme Court decided a case in which the central question was whether the police must immediately present a search warrant, he said.

THE FEDERAL Rules of Criminal Procedure say, “The officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.” The state’s Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure contain similar language.

But those rules say nothing about when the police must show a search warrant. “So basically, the way I read the case and the rule, they have to provide a copy of the warrant by the end of the search, but they don’t have to provide it at the outset, or even if you demand it,” Zlotnick said. “The reason — not that I agree or disagree — is to give the police maximum flexibility to execute the warrant in a way that will ensure the safety of the officers and ensure there is no destruction of property.”

Zlotnick, a former federal prosecutor, said the U.S. Supreme Court is becoming more deferential to police decisions about the execution of search warrants, and the Grubbs opinion signals that the presentation of the search warrant should not turn into a legal dispute between a police officer who is not a lawyer and a citizen who is probably not a lawyer either.

But if people are being cooperative and insisting on seeing a warrant, the better policy is for the police to show them the document, Zlotnick said. “If citizens want to understand the police justification for their actions, the police should provide what information they have, in normal circumstances,” he said.

“The only case not to show it is reasonable suspicion that evidence is about to be destroyed or there is danger to the police,” Zlotnick said. For example, he said, “If you come to the door and a person says ‘Show me the warrant,’ you don’t want to have his friend flushing drugs down the toilet.”

Roger Williams University law Prof. Andrew Horwitz said he is not aware of any requirement that authorities show a warrant at the outset of a search. But, he said, “In most situations, showing someone your lawful authority to do what you are going to do will deescalate the situation. It’s a less confrontational approach to treat someone with respect and show them what it is you are legally obliged to do.”

Horwitz, director and supervising attorney for the law school’s criminal defense clinic, drew a comparison to police officers who pull over motorists. Officers are under no obligation to tell drivers why they pulled them over, but most police departments would say the best policy is to state the reason, in part because it decreases tension and potential for conflict, he said.

“If there was a perception that the police were simply choosing not to show the warrant when they had the opportunity, that’s not a good thing,” Horwitz said. “That’s a sign of disrespect and it escalates the situation. It’s not an unreasonable request when your premises are about to be searched.”

But Horwitz said he can envision situations in which the police would need to execute a search warrant quickly to avoid the destruction of evidence. “I can also envision that while you are executing a warrant and before there’s a reasonable opportunity to show the warrant, things spiral out of control physically,” he said. “Once that happens, it’s hard to envision the calm, rational discussion that looking at a warrant with another person would normally involve.”

SO, WOULD showing the warrant at the outset of the smoke-shop raid have helped to avert the violent confrontation that ensued?

“Showing the warrant might have deescalated the situation, but it’s very hard for anyone who wasn’t there to know — and even for those who were there, to know,” Horwitz said.

Zlotnick said he has seen the widely televised video of the melee and it’s difficult to tell whether presenting the warrant would have made a difference. “It’s too hard a call,” he said. “And since it’s not legally determinative, coming to a conclusion is not necessary.”

Col. Stephen M. McCartney, the Warwick police chief and president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, said the smoke-shop raid was an unusual situation and he is not in a position to second-guess what happened.

But McCartney said that if the Warwick police think officer safety might be threatened in executing a search warrant, they do a “threat analysis” and “decide whether to employ a SWAT team or other means to protect the officers and lives of people at that particular scene.”

At some point, the police must show the search warrant they are executing, McCartney said. “But you have to take note of the circumstances and conditions you are dealing with. You have to have a stabilized situation,” he said.

Lise J. Gescheidt, president of the Rhode Island Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said she would have preferred the state police showed the search warrant immediately upon arriving at the smoke shop — or at least announced they had a warrant — especially when there were so many officers at the scene and there were television cameras there. State police officers have testified they announced they had a warrant.

In general, Gescheidt said it would seem to be helpful — and in the interest of public safety — for the police to show a search warrant before conducting a search.

Homeowners have a right to defend their homes, she said. “And if someone comes flying through your door, how do you know they really are cops?” she asked. “Rather than risk the possibility of injury, show the warrant so the homeowner knows they have the authority to be there.”

Also, Gescheidt said, “I’d want to see [a warrant] before I let someone in my house.”

efitzpat@projo.com