No-Knock Warrants

[DMF]

No-knock warrants need to be used with extreme care and should require strong evidence . . .

Well I guess we are in agreement then, because that is the way it works currently. Used with extreme care, and requires PC that the no-knock will be safer than a knock and announce.

 

[liliysdad]

I totally agree with your last statement...and they are, at least where I work...

As a mtter of fact, I know of only one time in the last 10 or so years that a no-knock was used...and it was used effectively.

 

[Penforhire]

Hmm, if there were a clear way of identifying yourselves as LEO's as you enter on a no-knock I'd be less likely to take offense and possibly defend my home. I don't see a solid method though. Yelling "police" is insufficient since any home invaders can do the same.

Maybe LEO tacticians should back up and re-evaluate the reasons for no-knocks. If you want to capture a person then perhaps throwing a tent over the house and gassing it would be better. If you want to capture evidence you can block the drainage point(s) and collect in-pipe evidence if anything gets flushed (nasty business but so what, hire a police-plumber).

Carrying slug-throwers through a broken-down door is not the smartest way I can imagine, just the easiest (ignoring the hazards to civilians).

Back to the LEO thought, "is my life less valued than yours?" In a sense, absolutely. You volunteered for a job that puts you in harm's way. Because you have a duty to protect the innocent you need to take risks that the average citizen would not. Anything you do that increases danger to the innocent (e.g. no-knocks) goes against that credo. Now if you want to toss away the requirement to protect innocents, well, your job will get even MORE hazardous.

 

[longrifleman]

Do it right, and you have my blessing. For what that's worth. Screw up, and at least be honorable enough to admit your mistake, go out of your way to make things right and accept the punishment that you would help mete out on others if they screwed up.

Well said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Militarization of the police is a somewhat subjective opinion but here are some reasons I think it is happening. Every podunk town in the country wants a SWAT team and the DoD is happy to give surplus equipment (the quality of surplus equipment can certainly be questionable) to police depts.
Human nature and bureaucracy being what they are they will be used wether they are necessary or not. The tactics are almost the same in Podunkville as in Baghdad. (I said almost) The attitude of the police also seems to have changed and that is very subjective so is certainly open for discussion.

Every year there are more laws passed that just have to be enforced. After all, the law is the law. There are also laws being changed from misdemeanors to felonies from time to time. Our legislators have to justify their jobs too. Those kind of things look good come election time. Law and Order candidates generally do well.

Every time this discussion comes up the justification for no-knocks comes down to preserving evidence and officer safety. These reasons can be argued for every crime a warrant is issued for. I have seen no evidence to make me think that the number of no-knocks is going down and some to make me think it is going up. I also know what the tendencies are for govt use of power. I am not comforted.

 

[JohnBT]

"But stop wanting us to kiss your civilian asses..."

Our civilian asses?

You military police or civil police? Ask your bosses, they'll know if you don't. If they don't I'd be glad to take the time to explain it to you like my daddy did to me. It's real simple.

Heck, I'll explain it now. Civilian police are subject to civil law and military police are subject to military law. There you go Mr. High-and-Mighty.

John

 

[tcsd1236]

If you want to capture a person then perhaps throwing a tent over the house and gassing it would be better.

If you are going to make suggestions, be realistic. That would be a multi-hour exercise and would endanger everyone trying to blanket the house, not to mention tgive the occupants a huge window in which to escape, resist, or destroy evidence.

Back to the LEO thought, "is my life less valued than yours?" In a sense, absolutely. You volunteered for a job that puts you in harm's way. Because you have a duty to protect the innocent you need to take risks that the average citizen would not.

Our job does not require that we needlessly expose ourselves to risk.

Anything you do that increases danger to the innocent (e.g. no-knocks) goes against that credo.

No knocks are used to increase safety to the officers and the general public, not increase danger.

 

[cordex]

If you are going to make suggestions, be realistic. That would be a multi-hour exercise and would endanger everyone trying to blanket the house, not to mention tgive the occupants a huge window in which to escape, resist, or destroy evidence.

No kidding! To say nothing of the impossibility of reliably "gassing" an entire household safely. Too much and you've got corpses. Too little and you've got return fire.

Why not just suggest phasers on stun?

No knocks are used to increase safety to the officers and the general public, not increase danger.

And when they're properly served on the right baddies for the right reason, they do just that and everyone goes home happy.

 

[Penforhire]

Next you'll be telling me how impossible it is to surround a house.

I'm just suggesting there are alternatives. I know some of you have a vested interest in no-knocks. They work GREAT... for you. But so would a host of other tactics that deny civil liberties. You guys make it sound like we civilians should "like" no-knock warrants. Seems like the popular opinion is otherwise.

When all you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail. When I suggested "tent" you could have substituted "gas grenades" but I can see you're still holding on to those hammers.

 

[sendec]

You dont HAVE to like it

and I dont. Y'all think we run around ponying up excuses to kick down doors? Maybe some guys do, but by no means the majority. If I had my druthers all bad guys would surrender peacebly at my office, fill out their own paperwork and allow me to continue getting a back rub from Cindy Crawford. If you are gonna have a fantasy, make it a good one.

Just doing some mental math, if I counted all the seach warants I did in a year, maybe 5% max would be no-knocks, though I can remember at least one year where I did none. None of those cases resulted in me booting Mrs. Gargle's door and giving her a MI, or shooting Rodney Redneck at the wrong single-wide.

My only vested interest in doing a no-knock is doing it so nobody gets killed, escapes, or destroys evidence, in that order.

BTW, ask the Russian Army and the Moscow police about "knockout gas" I imagine their version of THR had some interesting threads after THAT exercise in creative hostage rescue.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

sendec

Here's a fun little experiment to try - go out and get shot by a cop. Lawyers'll be lined up at the ER door waiting for your squad to arrive. Listen to the figures they toss out. The worse off you are, the better they like it. If they're luckly, you'll come with a trifecta, a pregnant wife and a toddler - jury's eat'em up

I can't believe that you're actually trying to justify police wrongdoing because the victims sue. How much money would it take to erase the pain of having your wife/child/etc killed? How much if the person caused you to lose a limb?

Your feelings hurt by the big bad pig? Toughen up, life is'nt perfect. You can do better, do it.

Hmm, maybe that should be advice applicable to anyone who has been wronged. Your feelings are hurt because your daughter was gang-raped, "toughen up". Your feelings are hurt because terrorists crashed a few planes, "toughen up". And so on, and so forth.

tcsd1236

No knocks are used to increase safety to the officers and the general public, not increase danger.

It's already been established that no-knocks DO NOT increase the safety of innocent parties. No-knocks have caused deaths to innocent people in situations where a knock and announce would've just made the police look incompetent. Can you name a situation where serving a warrant using no-knock procedures actually saved a member of the general public who would've died during an announce?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Contrary to what you believe, an early morning no-knock is far safer to all involved.

Yes, and it would be safer still if the police could require the installation of video cameras in all of our homes, such that they could monitor every zone at all times. Who's in favor of this? If we can save but one life by installing these video cameras it is well worth the loss of our Fourth Amendment safeguards, no?

 

[DMF]

I can't believe that you're actually trying to justify police wrongdoing because the victims sue.

He did not say that, and no RATIONAL person reading his statement could infer that. However, you are not engaging in rational debate, but rather twisting his words to fit your preconceived ideas.

It's already been established that no-knocks DO NOT increase the safety of innocent parties.

No it has not been established, or we wouldn't be having this debate. If it was established in any way shape or form that no-knocks did more harm than good, the courts wouldn't allow them, and liability sensitive LE administrators would not allow their agents to serve them. In almost every agency I can know of, agency policy is much more restrictive than the law requires, mostly in an effort to avoid errors that might hurt innocent people, and to avoid facing civil liability.

Can you name a situation where serving a warrant using no-knock procedures actually saved a member of the general public who would've died during an announce?

Sure the hundreds that have been served over the years that resulted in no one getting a shot off. You know a shot that might hit a neighbor in a crowded apartment building, trailer park, or neighborhood. I'd say all those violence free no-knocks protected a lot of lives in the general public.

On the other hand there are plenty of examples of violence occurring when officers knock and announce, in fact I posted just such an example the other day. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying every warrant should be a no-knock, but it's a valuable tool that should not be eliminated. To use a slogan popular here, "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

 

[DMF]

Yes, and it would be safer still if the police could require the installation of video cameras in all of our homes, such that they could monitor every zone at all times.

Ah very nice digressing to irrelevancies Hawkeye. Can't argue the issue, so argue an extreme that has no relevance, kind of like the tent/gas idea presented earlier.

 

[Michigander]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it is a fact that no-knock warrant serving has lead to the deaths of several innocent civilians . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a fact that knock and announce warrants have led to the death of many innocent cops.

I thought it was safer for all involved? As people around here are fond of saying, "you can't have it both ways."

 

[Michigander]

And sometimes a person is so close, emotionally and physically, to a situation that they cannot see it clearly. Add to that years of specialized training (a form of brainwashing perhaps) and one's perceptions may (and probably are) not necessarily aligned with reality.

Furthermore, for those of you who do not believe the police forces in the US are become more militarized, See Peter B. Kraska & Victor E. Kappeler, Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units(1997).

 

[DMF]

Michigander, I'm not trying to "have it both ways." There have been a few bad incidents with warrant service, however the vast majority that are described as no-knocks are in reality knock and announce where the subject of the warrant refuses to allow service, and the cops are left with no other choice, but to force entry.

No-knocks are only used in situations where a knock and announce would create MORE danger for all involved. Again, I'm not trying to have it both ways, but rather acknowledging that no system is perfect. However, as pointed out earlier if no-knocks actually created more danger neither the courts or the LE agencies would allow them.

 

[cordex]

However, as pointed out earlier if no-knocks actually created more danger neither the courts or the LE agencies would allow them.

Sort of depends on who is put in more danger, doesn't it?

 

[DMF]

And sometimes a person is so close, emotionally and physically, to a situation that they cannot see it clearly. Add to that years of specialized training (a form of brainwashing perhaps) and one's perceptions may (and probably are) not necessarily aligned with reality.

Furthermore, for those of you who do not believe the police forces in the US are become more militarized, See Peter B. Kraska & Victor E. Kappeler, Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units(1997).

Great, now it's being suggested that I've been brainwashed. Gee, I'm sorry the USAF spent all that time and money on training me how to resist such things, only to be foiled by my LE training.

How about this:

"And sometimes a person is so attached to their anti-cop dogma, emotionally and physically, that they can't see it clearly. Add to that years of reading biased literature from various groups with a political agenda (a form of brainwashing perhaps) and a total lack of any real world training and experience with the subject at hand, and one's perception may (and probably is) not aligned with reality."

Regarding the militarization of the police, I will again point to the Broward County SO detective that was killed last week. One officer wounded, one killed, and they brought out the killer unharmed. A "militarized" mindset would have resulted in them just pouring in the firepower and killing the "enemy." However, that's not what happened, they remained professional law enforcement officers, and attempted to resolve the situation while minimizing additional violence. They were successful, although I'm sure many there on scene, and those just reading about it would find emotional satisfaction in a more "militarized" response, but that would be wrong and they stayed professional.

 

[DMF]

Sort of depends on who is put in more danger, doesn't it?

Go back and reread my original post regarding the LE agency approach to the issue, and you will see it does not depend on who.

Also, the courts have ruled many times that officer safety alone does not justify actions that may have a harm to others.

 

[sendec]

And sometime a person has no freakin clue about what they are talking about because they have no training or experience doing it, but then I guess I am just brain-washed

Please, those of you with no experience, training or education in my field, please tell me how to do my job. Then, when you go in for a physical, let the doctor know you are an expert in medicine also. I am certain you have read the label on a bottle of aspirin, that has to count for something.

I am familiar with Kraska and Kappeler. They have a valid point in that many agencies are tempted to put resources into teams that will seldom be used when said resources could be used in other ways. Clint Smith also has a valid point in that teams are like fire trucks - you never want to use it but it sure is good to have around. Arguing the economics of small agencies developing teams is a far, far cry from the police becoming militarized. People see cops wearing BDUs and all of a sudden we're "militarized". So whats the problem, too many SWATTERs? So it'd be OK if only the detectives did no-knocks? Or, we can have teams, just dont use'em. Wait until it busts ugly and then call'em out? I thought this was about no-knocks, not Several Weirdos Armed to the Teeth.

You are more than welcome to your opinion, no matter how erroneous it is. You have heard that the world really is'nt flat, have'nt you? The earth actually revolves around the sun, too! As well intentioned as y'all may be, a poodle aint a pointer. You can saddle a goat, but it wont make it around the barrels.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

DMF

Sure the hundreds that have been served over the years that resulted in no one getting a shot off.

Can you cite a case with proof that a knock and announce would not have accomplished the same thing?

No-knocks are only used in situations where a knock and announce would create MORE danger for all involved.

That's a lie and any INTELLIGENT person would recognize it as such. As I said before: "No-knocks have caused deaths to innocent people in situations where a knock and announce would've just made the police look incompetent."

There have been a few bad incidents with warrant service, however the vast majority that are described as no-knocks are in reality knock and announce where the subject of the warrant refuses to allow service, and the cops are left with no other choice, but to force entry.

Proof?

sendec

Please, those of you with no experience, training or education in my field, please tell me how to do my job.

That's a stunning rationale. Have you ever been a lawyer, judge, senator, dictator, drug dealer, teacher, reporter, celebrity, or President? If not, then by your own reasoning you have no basis to criticize them.

 

[Art Eatman]

I go off for the afternoon, and Lordy, Lordy, Lordy!

This is ridiculous, folks.

Not only is this thread closed, I'm gonna summarily and arbitrarily close any other thread I see on this subject.

Sorry, but too much emotion, too many insults, too much bad language, and I and my Grammaw are fed up.

This sort of slanging and banging just doesn't relect well for the site or the reason for this site being on the Web.

Art