No Knock Warrant

[rusty]

In Missouri, I have the right to protect myself with deadly force if I deem it necessary. So if a cop comes through my front door with a no knock warrant and I shoot him, thinking it is a home invasion, then what? Assuming they don't kill me.
I remember years ago In Kansas City before we had "castle doctrine" the police stormed the wrong house in the middle of the night. The homeowner thought it was an invasion and reached for his gun and they killed him.The courts would do nothing.

 

[303tom]

In Missouri, I have the right to protect myself with deadly force if I deem it necessary. So if a cop comes through my front door with a no knock warrant and I shoot him, thinking it is a home invasion, then what? Assuming they don't kill me.
I remember years ago In Kansas City before we had "castle doctrine" the police stormed the wrong house in the middle of the night. The homeowner thought it was an invasion and reached for his gun and they killed him.The courts would do nothing.

I to live in Missouri & if you kick my door in, I shoot who ever comes through it, I DON'T care who it is !.....................:wait:

 

[rusty]

Just wondering about the legal aspect. I think "no knock" warrants should be illegal anyway.

 

[303tom]

Just wondering about the legal aspect. I think "no knock" warrants should be illegal anyway.

Should be !............

 

[havasu]

So, your grandchild is kidnapped and being held for ransom in a known house. They have told you that you either provide a million bucks of she is dead. Would you believe the cops should knock at the door and patiently wait for the bad guy to shoot your grandchild?

 

[BuzzinSATX]

So, your grandchild is kidnapped and being held for ransom in a known house. They have told you that you either provide a million bucks of she is dead. Would you believe the cops should knock at the door and patiently wait for the bad guy to shoot your grandchild?

No, but the problem with no knock warrants are when they get the WRONG address. Guess this can happen in many situations, but I hear my front door kicked in at zero-dark and if it’s just me and my missus, I’m bolting my bedroom door (solid BR door with bolt lock) and I’ll have a 12 gauge and a 9MM pointed at the door while we are on the floor calling 911.

We get into a shootout we will be dead, as cops will definitely be shooting back...and I get why, but we’re dead for their mistake!

So I am definitely not a fan of no-knock unless Target has been 100% visually identified. But I realize this is rare.

Cops have a tough, thankless job no doubt...but with all things, I believ we as Americans need to err on the side of liberty first, and security second.

Just my $0.02 you got for free on the interwebs

 

[303tom]

No, but the problem with no knock warrants are when they get the WRONG address. Guess this can happen in many situations, but I hear my front door kicked in at zero-dark and if it’s just me and my missus, I’m bolting my bedroom door (solid BR door with bolt lock) and I’ll have a 12 gauge and a 9MM pointed at the door while we are on the floor calling 911.

We get into a shootout we will be dead, as cops will definitely be shooting back...and I get why, but we’re dead for their mistake!

So I am definitely not a fan of no-knock unless Target has been 100% visually identified. But I realize this is rare.

Cops have a tough, thankless job no doubt...but with all things, I believ we as Americans need to err on the side of liberty first, and security second.

Just my $0.02 you got for free on the interwebs

With this I agree !..................Apples & Oranges ( havasu).............

 

[CrackbottomLouis]

No, but the problem with no knock warrants are when they get the WRONG address. Guess this can happen in many situations, but I hear my front door kicked in at zero-dark and if it’s just me and my missus, I’m bolting my bedroom door (solid BR door with bolt lock) and I’ll have a 12 gauge and a 9MM pointed at the door while we are on the floor calling 911.

We get into a shootout we will be dead, as cops will definitely be shooting back...and I get why, but we’re dead for their mistake!

So I am definitely not a fan of no-knock unless Target has been 100% visually identified. But I realize this is rare.

Cops have a tough, thankless job no doubt...but with all things, I believ we as Americans need to err on the side of liberty first, and security second.

Just my $0.02 you got for free on the interwebs

Well said. There are always outlier scenarios used by government to justify the "absolute need" to trample on our constitutional liberties. The job of law enforcement should be difficult. They are given a lot of power. We all need to think long and hard about the unintended consequences and potential for abuse before granting government powers they shouldnt have. Would turning over our liberty help save lives in some cases? Sure would. Is it worth it? Hell no. Liberty does not equal safety and security. The more liberty you have the more you need to be responsible for in your own life. For safety that includes a "warrior mindset", proper training and situational awareness. This will not prevent tragedy. Evil exists in the world and sometimes it wins. Put the blame where it belongs. Not on the tough job law enforcement has, our laws or way of life but on the people who committ the crimes. No knock warrants are stupid anyway. The need to directly assault a fixed, defended position should always be a last resort. 99% of the time there is a much better option and I am unwilling to change our culture of liberty for the other 1%.

 

[303tom]

Well said. There are always outlier scenarios used by government to justify the "absolute need" to trample on our constitutional liberties. The job of law enforcement should be difficult. They are given a lot of power. We all need to think long and hard about the unintended consequences and potential for abuse before granting government powers they shouldnt have. Would turning over our liberty help save lives in some cases? Sure would. Is it worth it? Hell no. Liberty does not equal safety and security. The more liberty you have the more you need to be responsible for in your own life. For safety that includes a "warrior mindset", proper training and situational awareness. This will not prevent tragedy. Evil exists in the world and sometimes it wins. Put the blame where it belongs. Not on the tough job law enforcement has, our laws or way of life but on the people who committ the crimes. No knock warrants are stupid anyway. The need to directly assault a fixed, defended position should always be a last resort. 99% of the time there is a much better option and I am unwilling to change our culture of liberty for the other 1%.

Amen Buddy !....................

 

[rusty]

No knock warrants are obviously a violation of the constitution. If anyone knocks down my door without announcing they are the police, I will shoot. There was an attempted home invasion in my town last night.

 

[havasu]

So, is it because of the "swatting" that is occurring that has everyone's panties in a ruffle?

I've been involved with hundreds of no knock search warrants. All have to be signed by a judge and you must show due diligence of the circumstances, and how you have identified this location. If kids are present, they will not authorize it. If this house belongs to a drug dealer, where controlled purchases have been made, to knock would give them a chance to flush the drugs.

Dang, it sure seems you anti folks are siding with Jerry Brown on this one. Just remember, no cops, no laws.

 

[rusty]

When I lived in the KC, the police broke into the wrong house. When the man attempted to defend himself, not knowing they were cops, they killed him. They got off free and clear.

 

[rusty]

As far as the swatting case, that cop should be in jail.

 

[VThillman]

The Constitution rules. No-Knock is un-Constitutional. Havasu, LE needs to find another way.

There almost always is another way, I think. A kidnapping is not a good example - you know how 99+% of those turn out; doomed victim from the get-go.

 

[CrackbottomLouis]

So, is it because of the "swatting" that is occurring that has everyone's panties in a ruffle?

I've been involved with hundreds of no knock search warrants. All have to be signed by a judge and you must show due diligence of the circumstances, and how you have identified this location. If kids are present, they will not authorize it. If this house belongs to a drug dealer, where controlled purchases have been made, to knock would give them a chance to flush the drugs.

Dang, it sure seems you anti folks are siding with Jerry Brown on this one. Just remember, no cops, no laws.

If that was always true mistakes wouldnt be made. There was a kid (3 yr old I think) that was badly burned by a flashbang here in GA. So your stated facts are apparently not true.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

I am not siding for or against anyone...I am saying that we need to stay as close to the intent of the 4th Amendment as possible.

“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.”

If you want to make it easy for people to break down doors to private property, that’s not anything I can agree with, whether I’m agreeing with Jerry Brown or Trey Gowdy matters not.

I realize there have been court cases and SCOTUS rulings that have defined the limits and allowances under this Right, but like some rulings supporting infringements on the 2nd Amendment, I really don’t agree with most of them.

I support and appreciate the folks in law enforcement, but the reality is we must guard our rights as precious and unbendable or lose them forever.

 

[aDave]

I am not siding for or against anyone...I am saying that we need to stay as close to the intent of the 4th Amendment as possible.

“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.”

Buzz, I'm just curious, and this isn't a setup for a trick question or trap. How is it that you believe that a "no knock" warrant is deviating from the original intent of the 4A? The warrant has been issued upon review of probable cause. The "no knock" allowance is simply the manner in which a judge authorizes service. Same holds true (at least in CA) for receiving an endorsement for "night service" which occurs between 2200 and 0700 hours.

The intent of a "no knock" warrant is to protect against the destruction of evidence and (believe it or not) to reduce the likelihood of injury or death to the occupants and/or LE. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Is it sometimes abused? Perhaps. Does it mean they should not exist? No, not IMHO.

(Not directed at you, Buzz) To argue that they should not exist based on some crappy instances makes about as much sense as taking guns away from LE because there have been bad shootings.

 

[SHOOTER13]

It would take more than one or two or ten kicks to get in my door...steel frame...steel door...two dead bolts ( mid way and bottom )...plus the locked door knob... set into concrete which would probably give it up first.

Then me with the AR behind cover... while the Wife has already got 911 on the line in one hand, her 9mm in the other.

I really feel sorry for THEM... that door is gonna cost 'em !!

.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

Buzz, I'm just curious, and this isn't a setup for a trick question or trap. How is it that you believe that a "no knock" warrant is deviating from the original intent of the 4A? The warrant has been issued upon review of probable cause. The "no knock" allowance is simply the manner in which a judge authorizes service. Same holds true (at least in CA) for receiving an endorsement for "night service" which occurs between 2200 and 0700 hours.

The intent of a "no knock" warrant is to protect against the destruction of evidence and (believe it or not) to reduce the likelihood of injury or death to the occupants and/or LE. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Is it sometimes abused? Perhaps. Does it mean they should not exist? No, not IMHO.

Dave, go back and reread my posts. I never said the no-knock specifically was a deviation, I tried to imply I wasn’t a fan of them, because I fear they can be easily abused.

I get that a no-knock can help preserve evidence and even save lives, but at what cost? We don’t regulate vehicles, roads and highways to the extent to prevent all car accidents and fatalities. We assume some level of risk. I realize this isn’t really a germane comparison, but it’s what I have right now.

I could easily argue the other side of this debate, just like I could argue the advantages of a ban on semiautomatic firearms and high capacity magazines. We can discuss the advantages of reducing or controlling lots of rights and liberties in the name of safety and justice. But sometime, the cost of increased security and justice is often the loss of some measure of freedom and liberty. And when we pay that price, we need to be extremely frugal.

We give up a LOT of rights these days in the name of safety and security. The Patriot Act is a prime example. I am simply not convinced they are all worth it.

 

[Supervisor42]

Then me with the AR behind cover... while the Wife has already got 911 on the line in one hand, her 9mm in the other.

I really feel sorry for THEM... that door is gonna cost 'em !!

I don't think it's necessary.
I think it's mainly that the cops don't want to serve a warrant in the middle of the night and rather do it in the middle of the day.
I've never heard of there being a no-knock warrant down here. They do round-up our drug-dealers in the early AM hours though.
They must sleep good because it always goes off without a hitch.

 

[aDave]

Buzz,

I read your posts, and your latest is what caused me to ask what I did. You left me confused when you quoted the 4A and then mentioned that you'd like to maintain the intent of the amendment when it came to (I'm assuming) "no knock" warrants. That's all I asked.

I'm still missing why you feel that a no knock warrant somehow goes against the 4A.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

Bottom line, I believe these no-knock warrants are way overused. And when mistakes are made, and innocents are hurt or killed, few repercussions are ever issued to the mistake makers...

Some articles discussing different sides of the issue. Check out #5 in the first link...

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/no-knock-raids-swat-facts-figures/2015/06/19/id/651434/

How about some serious examples of extreme mistakes...

http://www.businessinsider.com/9-ho...2-2#crave-more-militaristic-police-actions-10

A few other articles:

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083...-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

 

[BuzzinSATX]

Buzz,

I read your posts, and your latest is what caused me to ask what I did. You left me confused when you quoted the 4A and then mentioned that you'd like to maintain the intent of the amendment when it came to (I'm assuming) "no knock" warrants. That's all I asked.

I'm still missing why you feel that a no knock warrant somehow goes against the 4A.

The founders didn’t specifically address the no knock condition that I can find. Their focus was on a gov agent not simply showing up and arbitrarily searching for whatever, whenever. I would argue they accepted that even in an unreasonable search, the authorities would announce themselves upon arrival.

The no knock requires no such announcements, and seems to be issued mainly during the wee hours, when parties being searched are most vulnerable. I get this is a tactical advantage, but we are still in the USA, aren’t we? Our police forces still serve We the People, don’t they?

Sorry if you don’t get what I’m trying to say. Guess I’m a poor communicator.

 

[aDave]

At the end of the day, you still never answered why you alluded to the fact that a no knock warrant somehow skirts the 4A (your post where you quoted the 4A). If I misread your post or misunderstood your intended point, that's on me.

I acknowledged earlier that there could be problems with these types of entries. Again, the search, in and of itself was approved. The manner of entry is secondary. IMHO, a no knock warrant can be a great tool...IF it is not overused or abused. Pretty much the same can be said for any LE tool.

Funny how this stuff goes. I guess I could argue that you're taking the stance that "it could just save just one life" by not doing such searches. Where have we heard that before?

 

[aDave]

The founders didn’t specifically address the no knock condition that I can find. Their focus was on a gov agent not simply showing up and arbitrarily searching for whatever, whenever. I would argue they accepted that even in an unreasonable search, the authorities would announce themselves upon arrival.

If I recall correctly, the "knock" requirement came to be because there were instances where abuses were documented. Maybe I'm wrong about that historically, but much has come to pass to try to clarify what is adequate notice when the knock is required. I don't know when this came to pass, but I'm not going to disagree with the overall "tone" of those rulings.

The no knock requires no such announcements, and seems to be issued mainly during the wee hours, when parties being searched are most vulnerable. I get this is a tactical advantage, but we are still in the USA, aren’t we? Our police forces still serve We the People, don’t they?

Yep, we're still in the good ole USA. But, I see no good reason to put LE at a greater disadvantage when good (probable) cause exists to serve a warrant under "no knock" conditions. Again, such searches should be conducted only to ensure that evidence won't be destroyed or when said searches may reduce the chance of injury to the occupants or LE.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

Destruction of evidence and/or safety of the officer should be secondary to the protection of a citizens civil rights and liberties. If that is contrary to what you believe, perhaps you are looking at this from the POV of the government official, and that is absolutely contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

Will we possibly lose convictions or even lives from a 1 minute warning? Perhaps. But I believe the no-knock warrant is overused greatly in today’s world.

So this is how I see it, in theory:

If the local or federal authorities ID your home as the location of a dangerous terrorist, who may have explosives, contraband, and hostages, and the send in an overwhelming number of SWAT units, I believe they should still provide a warning if they are not 100% absolutely certain of two things:

1: their target is at the location and

2: there is no possibility they can be wrong because they can confirm and corroborate all info leading up to their conclusion of item 1 above.

I get that folks coming from a LEO background and history think my beliefs are “dangerous and ineffective” . Got it. And I’m not trying to make a cops job tougher, for sure. But this Nation was founded on the principles of Liberty first, and Justice second. The founders had just fought a costly war to oust an oppressive ruler whose agents did and took whatever they pleased in the name of the King. And with that mindset, they sought to establish safeguards through the Bill of Rights.

We as a Nation have let many of these safeguards decay over the years, often in the name of safety and security. Wars and trrrorist attacks have changed our mindset to a degree. And having watched the news and spent my share of time deployed to the Middle East, I understand the realities of our world today. But we all need to study our founding and understand our country was not established to be a safe place...it was established to be a free place.

I’m talked out. God Bless y’all!

Buzz

 

[303tom]

Destruction of evidence and/or safety of the officer should be secondary to the protection of a citizens civil rights and liberties. If that is contrary to what you believe, perhaps you are looking at this from the POV of the government official, and that is absolutely contrary to the intent of the Bill of Rights.

Will we possibly lose convictions or even lives from a 1 minute warning? Perhaps. But I believe these concepts are overused greatly in today’s world.

So this is how I see it, in theory:

If the local or federal authorities ID your home as the location of a dangerous terrorist, who may have explosives, contraband, and hostages, and the send in an overwhelming number of SWAT units, I believe they should still provide a warning if they are not 100% absolutely certain of two things:

1: their target is at the location and

2: there is no possibility they can be wrong because they can confirm and corroborate all info leading up to their conclusion of item 1 above.

I get that folks coming from a LEO background and history think my beliefs are “dangerous and ineffective” . Got it. And I’m not trying to make a cops job tougher, for sure. But this Nation was founded on the principles of Liberty first, and Justice second. The founders had just fought a costly war to oust an oppressive ruler whose agents did and took whatever they pleased in the name of the King. And with that mindset, they sought to establish safeguards through the Bill of Rights.

We as a Nation have let many of these safeguards decay over the years, often in the name of safety and security. Wars and trrrorist attacks have changed our mindset to a degree. And having watched the news and spent my share of time deployed to the Middle East, I understand the realities of our world today. But we all need to study our founding and understand our country was not established to be a safe place...it was established to be a free place.

I’m talked out. God Bless y’all!

Buzz

I agree 100% !..........................And I do support the rule of law................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

 

[havasu]

Sorry guys but I hear this same argument from liberal web sites.

Knock and "no-knock" search warrants have no more than a 2 second delay so you are saying we should eliminate all search warrants because someone could get hurt?

Exactly why do we need cops, hell we can use this money to feed many homeless as well!

 

[303tom]

Not all states or counties have one, but the sheriff, an elected official, is usually known as the highest law enforcer of the county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.
The feds may have forgotten authority resides in the sheriff !..........
In all actuallity the Sheriff is the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement, so if the Sheriff DON'T sign off on it. It shouldn't go down, because HE and HE alone is the one that is held responsible by (We The People) !.............

 

[VThillman]

Sorry guys but I hear this same argument from liberal web sites.

Knock and "no-knock" search warrants have no more than a 2 second delay so you are saying we should eliminate all search warrants because someone could get hurt?

Exactly why do we need cops, hell we can use this money to feed many homeless as well!

I'm with Buzz 100%. I like his exposition very much too. I'll just make three propositions and not 'explain' any of them, except to claim that they are rooted in the Constitution: 1) Americans have rights. 2) Americans suspected of crimes have the same rights. 3) (For you, Havasu) Liberal Americans are not always wrong.