No Knock Raids

[SlowwHand]

Now let's talk about the "castle law".

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that arose from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."

Texas has such a law.

[Darius871]

And if the argument is the contraband could be destroyed while the cops stand at the door, oh well. I dont care. People are more important than evidence of a non-existent crime (drugs)...

"Oh well, I don't care"? Why even take this thread seriously when you won't recognize the obvious fact that a bright-line knock and announce rule equals all drugs being flushed all the time, because you happen think prohibition of said drugs is bad policy in the first place? If you don't like that legislatures have declared certain easily disposable substances contraband, then vote for a politician that would legalize them. Lord knows the main reason I'd gladly legalize all drugs this minute is that as a policy matter it'd vastly reduce excessive intrusions on liberty and privacy across the board, and yet I'll be the first to admit that it's simply not a constitutional issue.

You are confused, the thread is about the constitutionality of no knock raids, whether or not they are "reasonable" and the implications they have for a police state. You dont need a link to discuss that, and you're the only one griping about it.

The goal of a no knock raid is to literally terrorize the occupants into freezing and submitting, the cops even admit this. And you think thats reasonable...

Why even take this thread seriously when you're totally misstating the legal standard from the outset? The Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search be "reasonable" is already satisfied (actually more than satisfied from an originalist standpoint, but I won't even go there) by a detached and neutral magistrate's issuance of a warrant supported by probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists within the home (which in this case appears conceded), leaving the common-law knock and announce courtesy only a factor that may or may not be outweighed by any risk safety or destruction of evidence. That you think the latter doesn't matter because it's evidence of violating an unjust law is constitutionally irrelevant.

[Timexwatch]

I'd feel much better about my country if we did away with no knock raids except in hostage situations, eg. How can we rid ourselves of this immoral policy? I mean, seriously, how could I ever vote for a politician who supported such brutality? I dont wanna hear about "mistakes are made", the mistake was telling the cops they could behave like thugs. If the argument is no knock raids make it safer for the cops, TOO ******* BAD! Dont take the job. I sure as hell wont subject my fellow citizens to such jackbooted thuggery to make life easier for the jackboots. And if the argument is the contraband could be destroyed while the cops stand at the door, oh well. I dont care. People are more important than evidence of a non-existent crime (drugs)... That includes the cops, and until I see stats to the contrary, common sense tells me more cops are killed in no knock raids than cops killed while being reasonable when serving warrants.

and can you believe that BS from the cops/DA? They break in and shoot the family dogs and then accuse/charge the father of/with child endangerment? They traumatize the kid and then blame dad? WTF? I'd lie to be on that jury.

Once again Poly is discussing something I know a little something about:

• Yes, "No-knock" warrants are increasingly common; however most of the time they don't result in any injury or deaths.

• Yes, they are intrusive but they do have their place because there are some warrants that, for officer safety, require you to not announce.

• They're mostly used for drug warrants because, surprise surprise, drug dealers often are armed and carry weapons

• If they're that awful in your opinion, your state legislator can ban them or narrow the criteria in which they can be used

• You don't need a "No-knock" warrant for a hostage situation. The exigency is already there.

The goal of a no knock raid is to literally terrorize the occupants into freezing and submitting, the cops even admit this. And you think thats reasonable...

• In my (albeit limited) experience, "No Knock" warrants are for when we think that the occupants may be heavily armed. When these are served, the ERT (aka SWAT) team will help.

• If you blitz a house that you have reason to believe may contain armed occupants it's far safer to get people to submit instead of having them try to resist. Otherwise folks inside get hurt.

I've assisted in the serving of search warrants, including houses where we think that there are dealers, and not one of these was a no-knock warrant. Did it really matter or differ much from a "No-knock" warrant? Not really; it was a difference of maybe 20 to 45 seconds. Ultimately the result is the same and 8 to 12 officers are going to knock down the door if they need to get in there. However, I'm not willing to take the option away from officers because there are dealers and other criminals who are far better armed then the knuckleheads that I mostly deal with.

[Berzerker]

Now let's talk about the "castle law".

Does that hold up for homeowners who kill cops in the confusion of no knock raids?

"Oh well, I don't care"? Why even take this thread seriously when you won't recognize the obvious fact that a bright-line knock and announce rule equals all drugs being flushed all the time,

I told you, because I dont care about the contraband - it aint worth lives and the state's desire to seize it does not nullify the 4th Amendment's requirement that searches be reasonable - no knock raids are not reasonable, the cops even admit the goal of the tactic is to terrorize the occupants into freezing.

If you don't like that legislatures have declared certain easily disposable substances contraband, then vote for a politician that would legalize them.

Thx Dad, always there with the sound advice.

I'll be the first to admit that it's simply not a constitutional issue.

Apparently in the USA it is perfectly reasonable for the cops to wait until late at night to blow up or break down our doors and shoot our dogs (and us should we try to defend ourselves) and literally tear the place apart looking for leaves from a plant.

Why even take this thread seriously when you're totally misstating the legal standard from the outset?

I cant wait for the proof of that, is this it?

The Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search be "reasonable" is already satisfied (actually more than satisfied from an originalist standpoint, but I won't even go there) by a detached and neutral magistrate's issuance of a warrant supported by probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists within the home (which in this case appears conceded), leaving the common-law knock and announce courtesy only a factor that may or may not be outweighed by any risk safety or destruction of evidence. That you think the latter doesn't matter because it's evidence of violating an unjust law is constitutionally irrelevant.

Yer confusing the chronology in the 4th, here it is:

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.

That the actual search and seizure be conducted in a reasonable manner is a requirement all by itself. This is our right!

Once again Poly is discussing something I know a little something about:
[*]Yes, "No-knock" warrants are increasingly common; however most of the time they don't result in any injury or deaths.

Link? I normally dont bother people with that request but I've been wondering myself what the numbers are and the DEA/BATF and various drug "warriors" sure dont publicize how many people they've killed. Waco was a no knock raid and ~200 people ended up dead because of that mess.

[*]Yes, they are intrusive but they do have their place because there are some warrants that, for officer safety, require you to not announce.

We're talking about contraband, not life and death.

[*]They're mostly used for drug warrants because, surprise surprise, drug dealers often are armed and carry weapons

Thats how the policy was sold to us, and it doesn't make it reasonable to break into a family's home and shoot the dogs over some pot.

[*]If they're that awful in your opinion, your state legislator can ban them or narrow the criteria in which they can be used

All this helpful advice, wow... I feel so warm and cozy

[*]In my (albeit limited) experience, "No Knock" warrants are for when we think that the occupants may be heavily armed. When these are served, the ERT (aka SWAT) team will help.

And thats becoming more common when drugs are involved. But seriously, the cops dont do much investigating. A small town mayor was on Stossel because he got hit by a raid (they killed their dogs too, thats just so damn reasonable) because Fed Ex delivered some pot to his house.

[*]If you blitz a house that you have reason to believe may contain armed occupants it's far safer to get people to submit instead of having them try to resist. Otherwise folks inside get hurt.

So the goal is to terrorize the occupants. I'd say thats reasonable when the cops are storming a devil cult about to sacrifice virgins, not while trying to catch a plant.

I've assisted in the serving of search warrants, including houses where we think that there are dealers, and not one of these was a no-knock warrant. Did it really matter or differ much from a "No-knock" warrant? Not really; it was a difference of maybe 20 to 45 seconds. Ultimately the result is the same and 8 to 12 officers are going to knock down the door if they need to get in there. However, I'm not willing to take the option away from officers because there are dealers and other criminals who are far better armed then the knuckleheads that I mostly deal with.

We just dont agree on whats reasonable wrt the 4th Amendment, I read it as a right we have against you, and you think its an option the state needs against us. Kinda turns the notion of a citizens' Bill of Rights on its head...

[SlowwHand]

Let me ask you something, as pertains to my part of your quoting. I don't hate cops, but if I was on a jury that involved a homeowner that shot a cop during a no-knock raid, I doubt that I would vote Guilty. Would you?

[Hauldren Collider]

Since in the ensuing mayhem it may not be obvious before shooting that the cop is a cop, I'd likely say not guilty. Obviously it would depend on the evidence presented in the case.

[SlowwHand]

Obviously. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a wrong location. If they meant to get next door, their bad.
Even at that, if they have the right address, I'm not so sure that would matter to me.

[MRT144]

If they no knocked me, it wouldn't end well. I'm upstairs where I'm generally at and hear crashing in, I think you can imagine. That Persuader shotgun is loaded and in the closet.

The worst part about it is that your 2nd amendment right doesn't protect your 4th.

[SlowwHand]

The worst part, for the intruder, is that nothing is protecting him.

[KrazyHorse]

Why are you assuming that there would be a trial?

You would be shot dead.

[Hauldren Collider]

I for one do not feel like messing with Sloww's persuader...

[Timexwatch]

Apparently in the USA it is perfectly reasonable for the cops to wait until late at night to blow up or break down our doors and shoot our dogs (and us should we try to defend ourselves) and literally tear the place apart looking for leaves from a plant.

It varies by jurisdiction whether or not cops can knock down your door. In my jurisdiction (D.C.), police are prohibited by statute to serve warrants in residences outside of specific authorization by a judge. It's all about how your state defines reasonableness vis a vis state law.


Yer confusing the chronology in the 4th, here it is:

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.

That the actual search and seizure be conducted in a reasonable manner is a requirement all by itself. This is our right!

No-knock raids are reasonable on their face; they would be outlawed by court precedent already if they weren't. What you're probably objecting to is the militarized response and the scope in which they're allowed to be used.

[quote]Link? I normally dont bother people with that request but I've been wondering myself what the numbers are and the DEA/BATF and various drug "warriors" sure dont publicize how many people they've killed. Waco was a no knock raid and ~200 people ended up dead because of that mess.

Unified statistics regarding law enforcement are notoriously spotty, but the last major study conducted by the DOJ that I'm aware of occurred in 1999 and according to the DOJ, a use of force (usually defined absurdly low to include resisted handcuffing) occurred in about 20% of all arrests; 2% involved weapons (including sprays, batons, and weapons), most of those involved sprays. Firearms were used in arrests in less than .5% of all uses of force. Uses of force were involved in less than one tenth of one percent of all calls for service. Taking those stats, it's pretty reasonable to believe that the percentage of people killed vs. the number of no-knock warrants is pretty low.

We're talking about contraband, not life and death.

Thats how the policy was sold to us, and it doesn't make it reasonable to break into a family's home and shoot the dogs over some pot.

Generally not, but the shooting of dogs or people in the serving of no-knock and regular search warrants is, by inference from statistics, is exceedingly rare

All this helpful advice, wow... I feel so warm and cozy

You should. How police agencies conduct search warrants is controlled by statute. As stated above, different jurisdictions can easily place controls on how warrants are served and when they're allowed to be served.

And thats becoming more common when drugs are involved. But seriously, the cops dont do much investigating. A small town mayor was on Stossel because he got hit by a raid (they killed their dogs too, thats just so damn reasonable) because Fed Ex delivered some pot to his house.

That was just outside D.C. in Berwyn Heights. The county police conducted the warrant, and from what I heard they violated the terms of the warrant and did a ****ty job preparing for the warrant. I'm sure they'll get lit up civilly and that heads rolled.

So the goal is to terrorize the occupants. I'd say thats reasonable when the cops are storming a devil cult about to sacrifice virgins, not while trying to catch a plant.

I'm not trying to terrorize anyone. The main objective, when serving a warrant is to enter, secure the occupants and then secure the scene. It's far safer for all parties for officers to quickly enter the house, cuff or secure the residents and take control of the situation.

We just dont agree on whats reasonable wrt the 4th Amendment, I read it as a right we have against you, and you think its an option the state needs against us. Kinda turns the notion of a citizens' Bill of Rights on its head...

Tomatoes, tomatos...you're griping about a method for serving a search warrant that materially makes no difference in the ultimate outcome. What you should be railing against is the militarization of domestic policing, which is something I'd agree with you on- there's a lot of overkill when it comes to work involving higher-end narcotics and high-risk warrant work. Agencies don't need heavily-armed SWAT officers to serve most warrants. They're just using them to justify the expense of maintaining them.

[Darius871]

The Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search be "reasonable" is already satisfied (actually more than satisfied from an originalist standpoint, but I won't even go there) by a detached and neutral magistrate's issuance of a warrant supported by probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists within the home (which in this case appears conceded), leaving the common-law knock and announce courtesy only a factor that may or may not be outweighed by any risk safety or destruction of evidence. That you think the latter doesn't matter because it's evidence of violating an unjust law is constitutionally irrelevant.

Yer confusing the chronology in the 4th, here it is:

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.

That the actual search and seizure be conducted in a reasonable manner is a requirement all by itself. This is our right!

I'm not relying on any "chronology" (whatever that means); I'm referring to what the sole authority for interpretation of what "reasonable" means has already interpreted it to mean, specifically that 1) the "chronologically" subsequent standards of A) probable cause, B) oath, C) warrant issuance, and D) particularity - 2) coupled with an extra-textual requirement that articulable suspicion of risks to safety or evidence not outweigh a small proprietary interest and temporally brief privacy interest in knock-and-announce - have been adopted as the yardstick with which to assess the "chronologically" antecedent reasonableness clause insofar as entry of the home is concerned, even though neither the text nor original intent of the Fourth Amendment require any warrant whatsoever, much less a knock before its execution. I'm sorry to say that what you saw on TV protects you more than the "chronology" of the text requires, not less.

[Caligastia]

Timexwatch is good with chronology.

[MRT144]

The worst part, for the intruder, is that nothing is protecting him.

The cops would kill you if you fired upon them. Your gun can't protect your 4th amendment right because it will result in your death.