Just more proof that no-knock warrants are a bad idea

swillden said:

bane said:

I really think the whole problem would be neutralized fairly if an "equalizing" law were put into affect that basically held the home owner completely faultless for fighting back against a no-knock. This would force the police to be even more cautious about taking this step and would enable a lawful citizen to defend one's home without fear of later reprisal (albeit, they still might die, at least they have a fighting chance).

Click to expand...

I don't see how being unable to prosecute the citizen after the fact would make police be more cautious, and I don't see how it would change a citizen's attitude. If someone busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'm going to fight back regardless of whether or not they're yelling "Police!". BGs can use the same tactics that police use. They can even come in large numbers. Knowing that I'll be legally faultless if they happen not to be police isn't going to change my reaction at all. Would it really change yours?

Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that I should NOT be REQUIRED to think whether or not they are real cops busting down my door... I should be able to simply defend my house. If it's a mistaken entry with REAL cops, I shouldn't be held liable for shooting them in my defense.

And yes, someone busting down my door looking and sounding like cops will almost certainly cause me to pause in fear that they are real and that I will get in serious trouble. Because the point is that I don't KNOW if they are BG's or mistaken cops. But currently (at least, I assume) if cops bust down your door and you aren't sure they are cops and you shoot some of them before they take you down I'm assuming you are going to go to jail for a very long time if you survive the encounter and labelled a "cop killer" even though the entry was a mistaken one and you were merely attempting to defend yourself against an uncertain threat.

Yes, I do think the average person would at least hesitate if the people coming in appeared to be cops.

Ok, so these no-knock warrants are to help the LEOs get into the house before the druggies can flush their stash right?

Well, rather than barge into the house in a militaristic style and put officers and potential innocent civilian lives at stake, can't we just call the city and have them put a filter or some kind of collection tap on the sewage line right before serving the warrant? I mean, sheesh... with all our human ingenuity a no-knock raid is the best thing we can come up with? What about plain old detective work... you know.. watching people come and go? What about nabbing them when they move in and out of the house? Then you can clear the house and seize the drugs.

Even still, no amount of seized drugs are worth the potential of a botched raid... If you are going to barge into someone's house unannounced and put people's lives at stake, there had better be a darn good reason - and drugs are NOT it. This person has to be suspected/convicted of murder before you go putting addition lives on the line. No exceptions.

GeneticsDave said:

Ok, so these no-knock warrants are to help the LEOs get into the house before the druggies can flush their stash right?

Click to expand...

Not just drugs. If the suspect is known to be armed the police would like to have the suppress. Action is faster than reaction.

GeneticsDave said:

Well, rather than barge into the house in a militaristic style and put officers and potential innocent civilian lives at stake, can't we just call the city and have them put a filter or some kind of collection tap on the sewage line right before serving the warrant? I mean, sheesh... with all our human ingenuity a no-knock raid is the best thing we can come up with?

Click to expand...

Actually the flushing will contaminate the drugs enough to cause "reasonable doubt."

GeneticsDave said:

What about plain old detective work... you know.. watching people come and go?

Click to expand...

In most cases this should be done and the evidence encluded in the affidavit for the warrant.

GeneticsDave said:

Even still, no amount of seized drugs are worth the potential of a botched raid... If you are going to barge into someone's house unannounced and put people's lives at stake, there had better be a darn good reason - and drugs are NOT it. This person has to be suspected/convicted of murder before you go putting addition lives on the line. No exceptions.

Click to expand...

Even still, no amount of Personal safety is worth the potential of a accidental/negligent discharge... If everyone is carrying a gun it will put people's lives at stake, there had better be a darn good reason - and personal safety is NOT it. This person has to be trained police officer before you go putting addition lives on the line. No exceptions. (bold sections changed)

Now I realize that the above changes are a bit of a stretch, I didn't have to change much to put an anti gun spin on it. Don't blame the tool blame the departments, cops and judges that allow the mistakes to happen. Actually I believe that the judge has immunity from being blamed for bad warrants. I don't agree but its one more law that needs to be changed.

Mazellan said:

Even still, no amount of Personal safety is worth the potential of a accidental/negligent discharge... If everyone is carrying a gun it will put people's lives at stake, there had better be a darn good reason - and personal safety is NOT it. This person has to be trained police officer before you go putting addition lives on the line. No exceptions. (bold sections changed)

Now I realize that the above changes are a bit of a stretch, I didn't have to change much to put an anti gun spin on it. Don't blame the tool blame the departments, cops and judges that allow the mistakes to happen. Actually I believe that the judge has immunity from being blamed for bad warrants. I don't agree but its one more law that needs to be changed.

Click to expand...

Naw, that example is crap. The benefits and costs are completely different on these two situations. Using your logic I could argue the negative or affirmative of anything.

People need to use common sense here and realize what is happening to our civil liberties. Whether these raids are being conducted to capture drugs or an armed villain is irrelevant. Neither of these things justify the violation of civil liberties in peace time. You declare a state of emergency or a police state, make it known that you are flushing my rights down the toilet, then you can barge in and shoot me and my family - but not under the guise of the fourth amendment. Read it, it says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Did you see that? No knock warrants are indeed unreasonable. A reasonable person does not barge into your home. They knock on your door, tell you what they are there for and then serve the warrant. The purpose of effecting the law should never trump constitutional rights.

My home is my castle, you can't come in unless I say you can. If you have a warrant, I need to see it and then you can come in while I call my attorney. This new wave of barging in unannounced violates the very foundational liberties this country was founded on.

One final thought I feel need to mention. Nothing in the 4th amendment says a no knock warrant is unconstitutional or unreasonable. On the contrary the second half allows for warrants to issued with probable cause. You can't bold half the amendment and not expect the second sentence to affect the above sentence. No human not even the HRT teams are perfect. If we fear all we should just move to the mountains and not talk with anyone cuz then if you don't have neighbors then the police can't mistake your house for a drug house. That isn't the answer. Eliminating a tool that police use isn't the answer either. What is close to the answer? Treat violators of the due process of setting up a valid warrant with extreme predigests. One thing that bugs me is that when someone complains about a problem but offers no solution to fix the problem. It gets nothing done. I am going into law enforcement. Can I change the entire nations police force? No its not feasible for one man to change the nations police. All I can control is me and hope that it rubs of on others or that I get in a position where I can weed out those who should not be in law enforcement. Banning all no knock warrants is not an answer. Sure that will limit police but does it limit police power? No. Because no knock warrants are suppose to be limited already but since we have people that think they can stretch the truth it becomes a problem. What is the 100% solution? There is no 100% solution. What's the main cause of death in this country? I don't think it botched no knock warrants! I believe it may have something to do with cars and drunk drivers. What's the answer to that? Prohibition? Oh wait that was already tried and guess what. It created criminal organizations to form. And when prohibition was lifted what did they turn to? Drugs!

Ok enough ranting. I realize we are on different sides of the fence here. We can agree to disagree. With my last and final semester starting at UVU i need to focus on passing my classes so I don't have to retake them. I hope that we can find a solution to hinder crime and all work together as a community to get the job done. Unfortunately many of us know that it will never go away and its only going to get worse. Especially if our country thinks that a leftist gun grabber is "a good change" for the white house. I thought I said enough ranting! lol Well I thank you for the good discussion and I hope to have others. Oh and happy birthday to my wife. :bday: She will carry one day.. Oh yes she will!!!! lol

Mazellan said:

Not just drugs. If the suspect is known to be armed the police would like to have the suppress. Action is faster than reaction.

Click to expand...

That argument doesn't hold water.

If destruction of evidence isn't the problem, then there's a much safer way: Surround the house and call the suspect out with a bullhorn. All officers should be behind cover and neighbors should be informed of what's happening so they can get to safety. If the suspect decides to fort up, then CS gas and other debilitating agents can be used.

The only way this wouldn't be both safer and more effective (though a little more time-consuming) is if the suspect has a potential hostage inside. Good detective work should be used beforehand to determine this, and to determine if it's possible to grab the suspect as he enters or leaves the house. If all of this groundwork is thoroughly and properly done, any chance of invading the wrong house will also be eliminated.

IMO, no-knocks should be done only if (a) the suspect is known to be armed and dangerous, (b) the suspect cannot be apprehended elsewhere, and (c) the suspect has a potential hostage in the house. If police were required to do the detective work needed to verify all of that, and present it to the judge, then I think a no-knock warrant is reasonable.

The reality, though, is that the no-knock concept was created as a solution to the War on Drugs problem of suspects quickly disposing of the evidence. Notions of it increasing officer safety came later AND I'm not sure they're well-founded. I think no-knocks increase risks to officers, suspects and innocents.

Mazellan said:

Nothing in the 4th amendment says a no knock warrant is unconstitutional or unreasonable. On the contrary the second half allows for warrants to issued with probable cause. You can't bold half the amendment and not expect the second sentence to affect the above sentence.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing this statement. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that no-knock warrants are justifiable as quoted from the U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Const. amend. IV. In applying the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that, even when they are conducting a search lawfully authorized by a warrant, officers must generally knock and announce their identity and purpose before entering a private residence to execute the warrant. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). The Court has stressed, however, that this general principle "was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances." Id. at 934. On the contrary, there are well-established exceptions to the "knock-and-announce" requirement, primarily in situations where exigent circumstances make it necessary for officers to enter the premises without prior announcement for reasons of physical safety or in order to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence or contraband. See id. at 936. (bolded statements added for effect)

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the modern day legality of executing a warrant this way. What I am saying is that the Founding Fathers would not agree with the current interpretation of the fourth amendment and the execution of no-knock warrants. The reasons given from the DOJ in effect make federal law and federal agent safety and agendas trump those of private citizens. So, regardless of the safety of private citizens, if the safety to those barging into the house is at risk, they will not knock (thereby increasing not only their danger but also the danger to the inhabitants in the hope that by surprise, they police can apprehend a BG before he can defend himself - good in theory, but fails on so many other levels). Also, for the purpose of capturing evidence the agents can violate the spirit of the fourth amendment - I completely disagree with this logic. No amount of evidence is worth this (IMO), but you are free to disagree.

I'm don't think LEOs should be punished for using the tools they have been given, I think that is back handed and two-faced. Here we are saying "you can do this, but if you mess up even in the slightest, we take no responsibility for your actions and you are all on your own." That sure is convenient for the agency the officer works for. We all know that officers are human like the rest of us and are bound to make mistakes just as we all do. The problem occurs when we give LE tools that allow them to violate fundamental human rights at the expense of the public just so they can make or solve a single case. We, as The People need to stand up for ourselves and say, "NO! This is wrong! I don't care what the Supreme Court Justices says, this is a violation of my rights and I want it changed! I will not live in a police state!" We must decide for ourselves. Have my civil liberties been trampled on in the guise of "safety" and "upholding the law"? When do I decide I've had enough?

And to you Mazellan, I would ask (and I am not trying to be confrontive, I am curious about what you think) "Why can't the police use the tools they've had since the founding of our nation instead of increasingly militarizing their methods, weapons and tactics?" I'm all for improving methods and equipment, but when do you say, "Yeah, I'm getting my job done, but I am violating the rights of so many people, is it really worth it?" I consent that we may have to agree to disagree, but I am very interested in reading your thoughts.

Thomas said:

Most no-knock warrants are executed in narcotics cases. Usually in a case where they have information that there are guns in the home. A good way to know whether it is cops or not is the number of people. I guarantee that if the police perform a no-knock warrant there will be a large number of officers coming through your door. They should also announce "Police or Sheriffs dept search warrant." as they are knocking down your door. I am not saying a criminal could not do the same however they are not going to want to make a whole lot of noise before they get inside.

Click to expand...

Thomas is right. Most no-knock search warrants are for served for narcotic offenses. And they happen A LOT more often than you would think, knock and no-knock. When a search warrant is served, you will have many officers on the SWAT Team making entry, hopefully 10 or more. When a no-knock is served, SWAT must still announce their presence, they just don't knock, instead they just breach the door and enter. You will also have many officers outside the target. One will be on a bull horn, announcing their presence to the entire neighborhood (no I'm not kidding) and telling the neighbor's to stay inside their homes. No-knocks are safer for the SWAT team. Knock search warrants allow suspects inside to secure firearms. The difference between an knock search warrant and a no-knock is less than 10 seconds. But that 10 seconds matters to the Entry team.

Swilden, destruction of evidence is important, but not to the SWAT Team. SWAT is there to secure the target so the Investigators and Detectives can secure evidence. Surrounding the house and calling the suspects out creates a problem the SWAT Team is trying to avoid: A Barricade Situation. The only thing worse than a barricade situation a hostage situation, which a barricade can easily turn into. Turning every search warrant into a barricade situation is asinine. Not only is it more time consuming, it is A LOT more dangerous to the SWAT Team members. Most barricades take 5 to 8 hours to resolve, where most search warrants and finished in under 60 seconds.

Not every search warrant is served by the SWAT Team either. Search warrants are rated on a danger scale. Some warrants are served with only one or two officers. Other require more, including a SWAT Team. Bottom line, No-knocks are safer for the good guys.

swillden said:

More time-consuming, obviously. More dangerous? Have anything to support that, or even to explain why/how it's more dangerous to police? And is it truly enough more dangerous to justify the innocent lives that erroneous no-knock executions take?

Note that I've already agreed that no-knocks make sense in cases where there's a potential hostage. It's not a good solution, but it appears to be the best one available -- IF the suspect can't be taken outside the home.

Click to expand...

Having done some SWAT Training, I can tell you that barricade situations are more dangerous than no-knock search warrants. I would much rather surprise the threat than have him know I was there. One of the purposes for the no-knock is to avoid a barricade. Barricades are obviously more dangerous because you now have a known threat that now has time to prepare for you to enter, and you no longer have the element of surprise. The threat is now waiting for you, not surprised that you are there and scrambling.

What innocent lives are in danger? Granted, you have seen one case recently where the SWAT Team had bad info. No civilians were harmed, and a couple officers were injured. That was bad, but it could have been worse. Can you tell me the last time an innocent civilian's life was "erroneously" taken? Do you have any experience or statistics to support that claim? Lumping all no-knock search warrants as bad, dangerous and unnecessary is just like others saying civilians should not carry concealed weapons because one CFP holder unnecessarily draws his sidearm because he is mad.

Stenny4 said:

Can you tell me the last time an innocent civilian's life was "erroneously" taken?

Click to expand...

• Kathryn Johnston (c1914-2006) was an elderly Atlanta, Georgia woman shot by three undercover police in her home on November 21, 2006 after she fired one shot in self defense, assuming her home was being invaded. While the officers were wounded by gunfire, none of the officers received life threatening injuries, but Johnston was killed by the officers.
  [/*]
• Corey Maye is currently serving life in prison without parole for the murder of Prentiss, MS Police Officer Ron Jones, after police entered his home on a search warrant in which they sought out a large amount of marijuana. In the pre-dawn hours of Dec. 26, 2001, Maye was awoken by pounding on his door. When police entered the home, Maye fired 3 rounds from a handgun, killing Officer Jones. According to Maye, it was only then that he realized the intruders were police and gave himself up. Officers testified that prior to breaching the duplex, they announced their presence and knocked repeatedly. Although he has expressed regret and sympathy for the Jones family, Maye maintains that he was only trying to protect his sleeping daughter from unknown intruders.
  [/*]
• Ryan Frederick of Chesapeake, VA is awaiting trial for the shooting death of Detective Jarrod Shivers. At 8:40 January 17, 2008, Chesapeake Police were executing a no-knock raid on Frederick's home. Acting on a tip from an informant, police suspected Frederick to be in possession of marijuana plants. While attempting to gain entry to the residence, Frederick shot Det. Shivers once, fatally. Frederick claims he fired in self-defense, saying that he had been the victim of a break-in three days prior. In addition to first-degree murder, he has been charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Police also seized tub containers, lights, a smoking device, and a fan. When interviewed about the incident, Fredrick claimed police made a mistake and stated, "It’s a **** shame, too, because someone had to lose their life over it." Det. Shivers was an eight year veteran and left behind a wife and three children.
  [/*]
• Fifteen former LAPD officers have plead guilty to running a robbery ring, which used fake no-knock raids as a ruse to catch victims off guard. The defendants would then steal cash and drugs to sell on the street. This tactic lead Radley Balko, editor of Reason Magazine, to complain "So not only can you not be sure the people banging down your door at night are the police, not only can you not be sure they’re the police even if they say they’re the police, you can’t even be sure it’s safe to let them in even if they are the police."[/*]

There are more, I will round them up later.