“No Knock” warrants.

[Bikewer]

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.
Rather, they are quite rare. The officers must apply to a judge for this sort of warrant (just as with all warrants) and must provide evidence that the search team expects armed resistance and/or the imminent destruction of evidence if they announce their presence.

The idea is to “go in” hard enough to surprise and overwhelm any resistance and to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Almost always, this is in regards to drug trafficking.

Often, the intelligence about the state of affairs in the place to be searched comes from confidential informants, or actual surveillance of the premises.

What’s problematic is when mistakes are made, and they can be tragic, as in the Taylor case. Wrong address, usually. There have been similar cases... In one I recall from years back, police got intelligence to the effect that a local man had been “stockpiling” weapons. They decided on a no-knock entry, and rather foolishly sent in “plainclothes” agents from the ATF. (The ATF has a rather problematic history in this regard)
The resident, who was actually a collector of antique, black-powder firearms, assumed the individuals were a home-invasion crew and fired on them.... And was shot and paralyzed by the agents.

If such tactics are eliminated, then police are left with limited options. If in fact the occupants are heavily-armed criminals, then announcing a search may lead to a prolonged armed standoff or barricade situation which can be very dangerous for all involved.
Some traffickers have setups which allow for the rapid destruction of evidence/product. They also often have sophisticated surveillance of their own, vicious dogs on the premises, etc.

I recall being involved not in a “search” but rather a “domestic disturbance” call at an apartment complex. Myself and another officer went to the specified apartment, at about 2AM, and there were indeed loud voices within.
We knocked on the door, announcing ourselves as “county police”, and the fellow inside immediately shouted out.... “I’ve got a gun, I’ll shoot!”
Turns out we had the right apartment number, but the wrong “unit”. All the units had identically-numbered apartments... The fellow was simply listening to his TV rather loudly.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

If such tactics are eliminated, then police are left with limited options.

So?

Life is tough. All sorts of people are left with limited options because we decide those options cause more harm than good. The violence inherent in the drug trade is caused in no small part by these kinds of police tactics, and is completely a result of illegal drugs being criminalized in the first place.

There is this unfortunate and almost universal belief within law enforcement that this is all about them. That somehow getting their jobs done and maintaining their personal safety are the only things that matter.

The hard truth is that the job of the police is less dangerous and less essential than that of a roofer and should be treated appropriately. The only reason it isn't is because of the general willingness for cops to abuse their power.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Almost always, this is in regards to drug trafficking.

Which people are getting a little tired of. Think of the restriction to no knock as a scaling back of the war on drugs.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

The hard truth is that the job of the police is less dangerous and less essential than that of a roofer and should be treated appropriately.

How many roofers are assaulted on the job each year?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How many roofers are assaulted on the job each year?

Objection! Relevance

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How many roofers are assaulted on the job each year?

That the specific dangers inherent to the jobs are different is of no consequence as to how dangerous and/or essential a job is.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.
Rather, they are quite rare. The officers must apply to a judge for this sort of warrant (just as with all warrants) and must provide evidence that the search team expects armed resistance and/or the imminent destruction of evidence if they announce their presence.

The idea is to “go in” hard enough to surprise and overwhelm any resistance and to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Almost always, this is in regards to drug trafficking.

Often, the intelligence about the state of affairs in the place to be searched comes from confidential informants, or actual surveillance of the premises.

What’s problematic is when mistakes are made, and they can be tragic, as in the Taylor case. Wrong address, usually. There have been similar cases... In one I recall from years back, police got intelligence to the effect that a local man had been “stockpiling” weapons. They decided on a no-knock entry, and rather foolishly sent in “plainclothes” agents from the ATF. (The ATF has a rather problematic history in this regard)
The resident, who was actually a collector of antique, black-powder firearms, assumed the individuals were a home-invasion crew and fired on them.... And was shot and paralyzed by the agents.

If such tactics are eliminated, then police are left with limited options. If in fact the occupants are heavily-armed criminals, then announcing a search may lead to a prolonged armed standoff or barricade situation which can be very dangerous for all involved.
Some traffickers have setups which allow for the rapid destruction of evidence/product. They also often have sophisticated surveillance of their own, vicious dogs on the premises, etc.

I recall being involved not in a “search” but rather a “domestic disturbance” call at an apartment complex. Myself and another officer went to the specified apartment, at about 2AM, and there were indeed loud voices within.
We knocked on the door, announcing ourselves as “county police”, and the fellow inside immediately shouted out.... “I’ve got a gun, I’ll shoot!”
Turns out we had the right apartment number, but the wrong “unit”. All the units had identically-numbered apartments... The fellow was simply listening to his TV rather loudly.

Thank God that it wasn’t a no-knock warrant or people likely would have ended up dead.

[Giordano]

As has been brought up in other threads, even assuming arresting a given drug dealer is worth high risk to police and innocent lives, could not the apartment be searched under warrant when no one was home, or the suspected drug dealers followed and arrested on the street when they are making their sales?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Another good move.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.

They are getting more common. Of course LEAs are reluctant to give numbers.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Rather, they are quite rare.

Yes, only a few tens of thousands per year.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

What’s problematic is when mistakes are made, and they can be tragic, as in the Taylor case.

Ah yes the "tragic mistake" defense.
How about some stats, from you, on the utility of the evidence recovered from such assaults? Numbers of firearms, quantities of drugs, stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

If such tactics are eliminated, then police are left with limited options. If in fact the occupants are heavily-armed criminals, then announcing a search may lead to a prolonged armed standoff or barricade situation which can be very dangerous for all involved.

How about some data about the number of weapons recovered?

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Myself and another officer went to the specified apartment, at about 2AM, and there were indeed loud voices within.
We knocked on the door, announcing ourselves as “county police”, and the fellow inside immediately shouted out.... “I’ve got a gun, I’ll shoot!”
Turns out we had the right apartment number, but the wrong “unit”. All the units had identically-numbered apartments... The fellow was simply listening to his TV rather loudly.

So you were neglectful, in that you failed to verify the address properly.
Personally I'd say the homeowner would have been perfectly justified in defending himself with lethal force had you forced entry.

In fact why not enshrine this in law? Blanket indemnification for people who defend themselves against police who force entry without warning.


Bounkham Phonesavanh
Crippled child. No drugs, weapons or arrests.

Ismael Mena
Killed. Police falsified teh information for the warrant.

Kathryn Johnston.
Killed, a 92-year-old woman. Police planted drugs, lied and tried to cover up.

Tracy Ingle.
Shot multiple times. No drugs.

Iyanna Davis
Shot when a police officer "tripped".

Jose Guerena.
Killed

Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas.
Killed.

Duncan Lemp
Killed

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time. Rather, they are quite rare.

How can you claim to know this? Relatively few states have reporting requirements in place, and those that do show an alarming and increasing prevalence of dynamic entry as the default method for tactical teams.

Originally Posted by NYT

Maryland had a similar reporting requirement from 2010 to 2014, inspired by a botched raid that resulted in the shooting of two dogs at the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights. More than 90 percent of 8,249 SWAT deployments during those years were to serve search warrants, and more than two-thirds involved forcible entry. Firearms were discharged in 99 operations, civilians were killed in nine and injured in 95, officers were injured in at least 30 and animals were killed in 14.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...drug-raid.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.
Rather, they are quite rare. The officers must apply to a judge for this sort of warrant (just as with all warrants) and must provide evidence that the search team expects armed resistance and/or the imminent destruction of evidence if they announce their presence.

In Louisville, the LEO obtained no-knock warrants for an apartment for someone who was not a suspect because the actual suspect used it once for a delivery, and the suspect's car had been seen by it. Not that it was there at the time or anything.

What was the basis for the claim of armed resistance? And what evidence was claimed to be there that would have been destroyed?

I call BS.

Either the approval was nonsense, or the intelligence claimed was all wrong. Either way, it shows that the approval was incorrect.

"Don't blame us, we thought the situation was more dire than it turned out to be!!!" Well then you are a bunch of *********. If you can't tell the difference between a place where innocent people are sleeping their beds and a den of drug pushers, then you have no business busting in.

The alternative to the no-knock warrant is to sit and wait until they leave and then go in. No one to fight back, no one destroy evidence.

Of course, then you wouldn't have the chance to shoot anyone, so what's the fun in that?

[eerok]

Drug raids serve the police more than the public. The police use the proceeds from seized assets to fund their assault hardware, which is then used in more drug raids. Meanwhile innocents get killed through sloppiness and incompetence.

I think no-knock warrants are an abomination.

[Joe Random]

I kind of view the 'they might have time to destroy evidence' angle along the same lines as high speed chases - occasionally letting an actual bad actor get away temporarily or get rid of evidence is an acceptable trade-off to prevent harm coming to innocents. Hell, I know that if LE was ever given bad into and they did a no-knock on me (no criminal history apart from three speeding tickets decades ago) it'd probably go quite badly for me. LE is used to being in those tense situations, but I never have been so I'm sure I'd panic in some way which wouldn't be to my benefit.

Better 10 drug dealers flush their stash than a single innocent get shot during a no-knock entry.

[Bikewer]

My purpose in these posts is to illustrate how things are supposed to work. That there are errors and problems cannot be denied.
In every case, in order to obtain any kind of warrant, a judge must sign off on the application.
There are a great many judges, and some are more diligent than others.... Even to my personal knowledge I know of officers who would work hard to present their cases to judges known to be favorable to the police...
I had a warrant (not a search warrant) once signed by a judge who was literally on his way out of his office on his way home... He scarcely glanced at the thing.

These things could be handled administratively.... Having a single judge involved in approving all search warrants, perhaps.

The benefits, or lack thereof, of the “war on drugs” is outside the scope of this... We police do not get to give a great deal of input as to which laws to enforce..... That’s for the politicians.

Personally, I see the war on drugs as a long standing mistake of the first order. It does nothing to accomplish it’s purpose (by the government’s own admission), results in a permanent underclass of citizens, and costs many billions of dollars annually.
All to no purpose whatever.
Continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.....

[a_unique_person]

This man in Australia had people break into his home unannounced yelling, he ran. They literally tore his arm out of it's socket after they had him.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...yenas/11106762



They had the wrong man. The person they were after is highly dangerous but the impression I got was that this happened after they had him. He says they never identified themselves as police.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Even to my personal knowledge I know of officers who would work hard to present their cases to judges known to be favorable to the police...
I had a warrant (not a search warrant) once signed by a judge who was literally on his way out of his office on his way home... He scarcely glanced at the thing.

These things could be handled administratively.... Having a single judge involved in approving all search warrants, perhaps.

A) It is the judges fault for allowing those cops to be inept or corrupt?

B)the officers you describe are bad cops, and the reason people advocating cops losing QI and ability to conduct no knock raids.

[smartcooky]

No-knock warrants are a very stupid idea, and EXTREMELY dangerous, in a state that prides itself on the fact that every citizen has the Constitutional right to defend themselves and their homes with firearms. It is just asking for a Breonna Taylor situation to happen.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

If such tactics are eliminated, then police are left with limited options.

I call BS on that. If the lack of no-knock warrants is so limiting on Police options, why aren't all warrants the no-knock type? Why even have those ordinary "option limiting" search warrants?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.
Rather, they are quite rare. The officers must apply to a judge for this sort of warrant (just as with all warrants) and must provide evidence that the search team expects armed resistance and/or the imminent destruction of evidence if they announce their presence.
.....

According to this, there are 20,000 no-knock raids -- not just warrants, actual raids -- every year.

Quote:

In theory, no-knock raids are supposed to be used in only the most dangerous situations. So what might be most surprising about them is how infrequently police officers get killed when they bust into suspected criminals' homes unannounced.

In reality, though, no-knock raids are a common tactic, even in less-than-dangerous circumstances. There are a staggering 20,000 or more estimated no-knock raids every year across America. By the numbers, it's clear that no-knock SWAT raids are far more dangerous to civilians than they are to police.

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/70833...ous-work-drugs

That sure sounds like a lot to me, and I would be willing to bet that law enforcement would not be impaired if the cops were required to announce themselves outside and give occupants time to respond. If some "product" gets flushed, tough.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Which people are getting a little tired of. Think of the restriction to no knock as a scaling back of the war on drugs.

It will never happen. Not only is drug use a moral issue, it is the perfect excuse to wind back constitutional rights.

Just look at what is happening in the name of the "war on drugs":
- No knock searches.
- Asset seizures without due process.
- Electronic surveillance of people.
- Mining of people's online data
- etc

I'm sure that you can add a lot of other benefits for the authorities to that list.

[The Great Zaganza]

The War on Drug is the reason why there is a drug problem in the first place.

The evidence on this is by now overwhelming.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The War on Drug is the reason why there is a drug problem in the first place.

The evidence on this is by now overwhelming.

Even better. It gives the authorities the excuse to wind back even more constitutional rights.

[Robin]

I was in a house when a no knock warrant was executed (at least we assumed they had a warrant). Luckily this was in Britain where the police are not normally armed. They kicked in the door and shouted "We're coming in" and they all rushed in. We looked rather quizzically at them and someone.said "Can we help.you with something, officers?" They said "Do you have drugs in here?".and my friend Gina put on her thinking face and said "Mmm, drugs.... drugs, let me think. You might try looking in the wardrobe in the second bedroom, the door over there on the left". One of them went and looked in the completely empty wardrobe in the empty room. He came back and said "why are you being like this?"

We eventually convinced them that the drug dealing bikes they had come to arrest had been evicted and that we were neither drug dealers nor bikies. The police never paid for the door.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Bob001

According to this, there are 20,000 no-knock raids -- not just warrants, actual raids -- every year.

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/70833...ous-work-drugs

That sure sounds like a lot to me, and I would be willing to bet that law enforcement would not be impaired if the cops were required to announce themselves outside and give occupants time to respond. If some "product" gets flushed, tough.

The last year that has definitive numbers for no-knock warrants, which was 2005 as LEAs have subsequently failed to keep records () was over 50,000.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Joe Random

I kind of view the 'they might have time to destroy evidence' angle along the same lines as high speed chases - occasionally letting an actual bad actor get away temporarily or get rid of evidence is an acceptable trade-off to prevent harm coming to innocents. Hell, I know that if LE was ever given bad into and they did a no-knock on me (no criminal history apart from three speeding tickets decades ago) it'd probably go quite badly for me. LE is used to being in those tense situations, but I never have been so I'm sure I'd panic in some way which wouldn't be to my benefit.

Better 10 drug dealers flush their stash than a single innocent get shot during a no-knock entry.

Plus, flushing their drugs costs them a lot of money. Do it enough times and it won't be very profitable.

[Joe Random]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Plus, flushing their drugs costs them a lot of money. Do it enough times and it won't be very profitable.

And that just made me think of something else - if the stash is small enough to be flushed or otherwise reliably destroyed by the time a regular (not no-knock) warrant gets LE entry, was it so large that we needed to burst through the doors unannounced in the first place? Tony Montana isn't going to be able to do away with his stuff in time. Acknowledging that I have neither experience dealing drugs nor arresting drug dealers, how big would the fish be who would be able to get away at all absent no-knocks?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Along with the qualified-immunity thing, there are calls to eliminate so-called “no knock” search warrants.

Again, the general public seems to think that these things are routine, and that police do this all the time.

Yet they are documented doing them in cases that should be routine, so why are they doing them then if these are so rare?

They are routine for many departments is the answer that fits with the data.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yet they are documented doing them in cases that should be routine, so why are they doing them then if these are so rare?

They are routine for many departments is the answer that fits with the data.

I saw a case end up being thrown out because the officers did a no-knock swat type raid for the admitted reason that they wanted to practice it. They didn't even lie. They thought that was OK.

The sad thing being they didn't have a no-knock warrant. They didn't even have a search warrant. All they had was an arrest warrant for someone they thought was there and that isn't enough to even let them enter the house much less how they did.

Nothing came of it as far as I know because suing based on these things is largely pointless unless someone gets hurt.

There just needs to be a total ban on this.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Plus, flushing their drugs costs them a lot of money. Do it enough times and it won't be very profitable.

That's actually an interesting idea. Cops could just stand outside a suspected drug dealer's door, yell "Police!," and listen for a flushing toilet. THEN GO AWAY! Nobody hurt, no warrant needed.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bob001

That's actually an interesting idea. Cops could just stand outside a suspected drug dealer's door, yell "Police!," and listen for a flushing toilet. THEN GO AWAY! Nobody hurt, no warrant needed.

Counterproductive. Society is arguably better served when the supply of drugs is stable without sudden dry spells and changes in price.

Lower prices less property theft, and less people having impromptu detoxes without any sort help with addiction issues. Also less of a market for cheap counterfeit drugs,

Not putting dealers out of business means less people looking for new dealers who might be selling more dangerous product or battling over turf. Not to mention the dangers of opening new supply lines.

Plus if you do get rid of all substances currently being trafficked, people will use something else because the world sucks and people want to get high.

Looking at this as a supply side issue is about as dumb as any public policy ever. That it is the basis for violent home invasions is just staggering.

[Senex]

I'm glad they ended that TV show Cops. I was on it twice and I can tell you that they edited the material to make me look like the lunatic guy in his skivies and sleeveless T-shirt.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Senex

I'm glad they ended that TV show Cops. I was on it twice and I can tell you that they edited the material to make me look like the lunatic guy in his skivies and sleeveless T-shirt.

They doctored the videos to add skivies?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Counterproductive. Society is arguably better served when the supply of drugs is stable without sudden dry spells and changes in price.

Lower prices less property theft, and less people having impromptu detoxes without any sort help with addiction issues. Also less of a market for cheap counterfeit drugs,

Not putting dealers out of business means less people looking for new dealers who might be selling more dangerous product or battling over turf. Not to mention the dangers of opening new supply lines.

Plus if you do get rid of all substances currently being trafficked, people will use something else because the world sucks and people want to get high.

Looking at this as a supply side issue is about as dumb as any public policy ever. That it is the basis for violent home invasions is just staggering.

If you want to argue that currently illegal drugs should be legalized, there's a legitmate case to be made.The Netherlands, Portugal and other countries have focused more on treatment and regulation than prohibition, with good results. But as long as we have drug laws on the books, passed by legislatures elected by the people, the cops are expected to enforce them. I suggest enforcing them in the least harmful, least dangerous ways possible, and that they do it without conducting home invasions under color of law.

[Garrison]

I'm curious as to how dangerous theses raids are for police officers versus other police activities. Is an officer raiding some drug den really at higher risk of being shot at than the officer making a routine traffic stop with no idea who might be in the car?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Garrison

I'm curious as to how dangerous theses raids are for police officers versus other police activities. Is an officer raiding some drug den really at higher risk of being shot at than the officer making a routine traffic stop with no idea who might be in the car?

Well there have been several incidents of "friendly fire"...

[CORed]

Originally Posted by eerok

Drug raids serve the police more than the public. The police use the proceeds from seized assets to fund their assault hardware, which is then used in more drug raids. Meanwhile innocents get killed through sloppiness and incompetence.

I think no-knock warrants are an abomination.

It seems to me that if you repealed drug laws you would eliminate most of the need for no-knock warrants. How about we try treating substance abuse as a medical problem and quit thinking we can legislate and police drugs out of existence?

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If you want to argue that currently illegal drugs should be legalized, there's a legitmate case to be made.The Netherlands, Portugal and other countries have focused more on treatment and regulation than prohibition, with good results. But as long as we have drug laws on the books, passed by legislatures elected by the people, the cops are expected to enforce them.

Inherent to law enforcement is discretion. They get to set their priorities to use their resources as they see fit. Prosecutors have discretion as to what to charge.

That drugs are given priority above anything is totally within their powers. It is funny how that works; the crimes that allow them to crack down on the powerless are the ones that are more important to enforce.

Quote:

I suggest enforcing them in the least harmful, least dangerous ways possible, and that they do it without conducting home invasions under color of law.

Or it could be by realizing that zealous enforcement makes the problem worse and accordingly making enforcing those laws an extremely low priority.

Maybe take a few of those cops and investigate wage theft. Fraud is a thing. Plenty of actual useful things those cops could do. Putting on a production of Oklahoma for an old folks home has more social utility, really.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

Inherent to law enforcement is discretion. They get to set their priorities to use their resources as they see fit. Prosecutors have discretion as to what to charge.

That drugs are given priority above anything is totally within their powers. It is funny how that works; the crimes that allow them to crack down on the powerless are the ones that are more important to enforce.

Yep, discretion. A local city stopped setting up speed traps and generally said we won't be looking for speeders anymore. Unsafe driving was what they would focus on and give tickets for. Probably more work than just going after any car that is more than five over on the radar gun, but much better use of resources in my opinion.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Yep, discretion. A local city stopped setting up speed traps and generally said we won't be looking for speeders anymore. Unsafe driving was what they would focus on and give tickets for. Probably more work than just going after any car that is more than five over on the radar gun, but much better use of resources in my opinion.

Beware of being over-zealous or meddlesome. These are dangerous faults. Let your anxiety be to do your duty, but no more. A meddlesome constable who interferes unnecessarily upon every trifling occasion stirs up ill-feeling against the force, and does more harm than good. An over-zealous man, who is always thinking of himself, and desiring to call attention to his own activity, is very likely to fall into a habit of exaggeration, which is a fatal fault, as I shall presently show you.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Yep, discretion. A local city stopped setting up speed traps and generally said we won't be looking for speeders anymore. Unsafe driving was what they would focus on and give tickets for. Probably more work than just going after any car that is more than five over on the radar gun, but much better use of resources in my opinion.

I don't know what the road code is in your State/Country, but here, on any given day, motorway speeds in places like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch can be up to 20 km/h over the 100 km/h limit, and as long as the traffic is flowing smoothly, the cops will largely ignore this.

However, any speed more than 40km/h (25mph) above the posted speed limit will get you a $500 fine and an instant 28-day license suspension. More than 50km/h (32mph) is considered careless, dangerous or reckless driving. This means a summons to a court proceeding, a very hefty fine ($750+) and a lengthy loss of license.

[dudalb]

Against no knock warrents except in a "Hot Pursuit " situation or other obvioius emergency (if gunshots are heard in apartment , for example).
But for court warrents, I see nothing wrrong with going back to the old "THis is the policeWe have a warrant for your arrest.You have one Minute to come out with your hands up " approach.
And I am more sympathtic to the police then many here.