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.
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)
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.
