A No Knock Warrant Death

[frankie_the_yankee]

No knock warrants make no sense.

If the subject(s) are thought to have a lot of dope, there's no way they could get rid of it quickly enough to justify a no knock warrant.

If they are thought to have only a small amount of dope, the offense doesn't rise to the level that would justify such an offense to the 4th Amendment as is posed by a no knock warrant.

If the subjects are thought to be heavily armed, violent, and likely to resist arrest with deadly force, maybe, just maybe a no knock warrant could be justified. But LE should have to present strong evidence as to both the threat posed by the subjects and why an arrest couldn't be accomplished in some other, less intrusive way.

I'm thinking of something like Waco here (even though that wasn't strictly a no knock raid). If they wanted to bust Koresh, they could have just waited until he came into town and taken him down there. And maybe THEN executed a search warrant at the compound. Violent resistance would be much less likely with the leader in custody, IMO.

Getting a no knock warrant in a case where all the guy has is a small bag of pot shows clear abuse of the system IMO, or total incompetence on the part of LE.

Take your pick.

 

[average_shooter]

We could slow down the drug trade alot if we closed the border.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick on an individual and I'm not trying to get personal, but this idea is silly to me. It sounds quite a bit like "Ban all handguns and they will disappear." If we only do this one thing our problems will be solved.

I really don't get the disconnect between guns and drugs. Prohibition does not work. Whether it's alcohol, guns, or drugs. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.

The idea that you should go to jail for buying speed on the street, but hey, your doctor can prescribe it to your 9-year-old (in the form of Ritalin) for being figity. What a mess...

There are drugs in Maximum Security prisons. Exactly how will a border fence stop drugs? Great Britain virtually banned handguns, and they're an island, and they still have problems...

Maybe someone can explain to me why it is gun-folk bash the "anti's" for thinking prohibiting guns will make them go away, while at the same time gun-folks say prohibiting drugs will make them go away...

We need to be real careful to not become that which we loathe.

EDIT to add:

looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant,

One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

At least that's what I recall...

 

[Sage of Seattle]

looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant, whether they did knock and announce then is more of the issue. did they or didn't they?

Looks like you just answered your own question with the quote from the neighbor. "I heard a bam, but no warnings from the police." Yes, we don't know whether or not the warrant issued was in fact, no knock. I, personally, made that conclusion based on the article, so I could be wrong. However, if they had a regular warrant, how come no announcement was heard? If there was an announcement made, then I would imagine it would have gone something like this:

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" *WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

As opposed to:

*WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

The first example I made doesn't make sense to me if that's the way it really happened. Some marijuana and paraphanalia was found, but the guy apparently had no priors or anything and seemed verifiably jittery after having been broken into so soon before.

 

[Erik]

This is incorrect:

"One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

You just described a no-knock.

---

This is correct. The time line between the "whams" and the "blam" must be reasonable. Reasonable is generally considered to be the time it would take the average person to respond to the door. It is a relatively short period of time, not measured in minutes.

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" *WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

Repeat announcement loudly and often as you go.

---

This is incorrect. There are no "whams" in a no-knock entry.

As opposed to:

*WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

---

This is correct for the no-knock:

*BLAM*

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" Repeat loudly and often as you go.

 

[Erik]

That said, and with little information, it appears a standard warrant was served, and that the police allowed sufficient time for the bad guy, and that's what he appears to be, to arm himself and shoot a member of the warrant service team.

Which is of course the argument FOR no-knocks in the first place.

Note no reference to a bullet fest. That speaks to the professionalism of the entry team.

But perhaps more information will come to light swaying thigs one way or the other.

---

No-knock, high-risk warrants are statistically safer than standard, low-risk ones for both sides of the law, by the way. It is one of the reasons they are so prevalent and a strong counter argument to arguments to abolish them.

 

[primer]

From what I've read the guy fired before visually identifying his target. Every gun forum I see says the same thing "know what you are shooting before you shoot". Could have been one of his buddies messing around with him. He didn't verify before firing. Do I think he was wrong? I don't know because I wasn't there and don't know exactly what happened. I do know that I don't walk around my home with my sidearm on, so I would have to hear the noise then get up and grab my weapon and then IDENTIFY my target and decide weather or not to fire. Ok, If the cop did not identify himself. Yes he was partly to blame for the incedent. I've thought about the same situation at my home. No, I'm not a criminal. But people make mistakes every day and my address could be given to a cop by mistake, so yes I have thought about it. I feel that I would identify my target before firing. Bassically, he should have identified before firing. If he did identify first, that brings with it a whole new set of consequences. The way I see it your more likly to hit your target if you see it anyway. Don't just go shooting your weapon without knowing. That's the kind of things the polititions use to fuel their anti-gun campains. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me, but thats how I feel about it. He should have known what he was shooting first. If he did know.....

 

[Kipling79]

im not seeing anywhere in this story where it was a "no knock" warrant

A warrant doesn't have to be expressly issued as "no knock". If the officers have a reasonable belief that knocking would increase the chance for violence, or give the suspect an opportinity to destroy the evidence, the failure to announce their presence will be over-looked based on common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce. I know this is only wiki... but it references valid law and common law still used today.

Depends completely on information which we don't have... but it doesn't sound "reasonable" to me, especially since this guy apparently has no record of violence. Unless they had a tip that the drugs were sitting by the toilet ready for disposal... I would hope the jury found that the police were in the wrong.

 

[average_shooter]

As to the "identify the target;" I normally agree. However, in this situation if the homeowner had waited to identify the target he would be dead. If a cop comes through the door and sees someone pointing a gun at him, he'll shoot first, right? So either way there's at least one dead guy at the scene. Bad situation any way you cut it.

 

[ilbob]

This is correct. The time line between the "whams" and the "blam" must be reasonable. Reasonable is generally considered to be the time it would take the average person to respond to the door.

so 3 to 5 minutes would be the standard?

I don't watch it all that much but virtually every reality TV cop show I have seen the announcement knock and door crashing in happen within a few seconds of each other.

the reality is that no one inside can probably understand the incoherent shouting going on outside.

 

[ilbob]

From what I've read the guy fired before visually identifying his target.

Do you really need to visually identify a target that is crashing through your front door? That's home invasion. Its a felony in every state of the union. If it was not the cops coming through the door no one would have questioned the shooting, and in most states he would be clean, legally.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

One of the most upsetting things is that creation and usage of SWAT or paramilitary-style tactical teams are an increasing trend. They used to be for extremely high risk situations. Now they're being applied to all these non-violent offenders...even consentual crimes like poker. Seriously...why do you need a SWAT or paramilitary raid on a poker game being held by the Veterans of Foreign Wars? I think a lot of people in Dallas would like to know why such a thing occurred at VFW Post 1837.

There are new SWAT teams being formed in small cities. Towns like Paradise, CA with a population of 26k people got their own team last year. Unicoi County in Tennessee got an armored vehicle to keep their 17,703 residents safe.

A SWAT team that exists needs to be used to justify its existence by being used, so you have a positive feedback loop where dynamic entries are being needlessly used, putting everyones' lives in danger. Then we can say "Another successful SWAT raid" to justify it's existence. You start finding reasons to justify using SWAT teams where it isn't justified...to justify it's very existence.

I'm not anti-SWAT or anti-police or such, but I think I make a valid criticism. Everything has it's place, but I think the judicious use of such tactics for such minuscule violations of the law are ridiculous. We just spent countless tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on doing months of undercover and investigative work in San Mateo County, only to do a police raid on a poker game where it was illegal to rake an extra $5 by the house to pay for pizza and beer. I think those months of investigative hours would be well spent on more pressing matters.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7967925?nclick_check=1
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_7996181
http://ksnydersj.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/reno-911-the-home-game/

 

[ilbob]

There are good reasons for every department to have a SWAT type team. The problem is that the same as with the guy who has the hammer and thinks every problem is a nail. Police administrators feel the need to use them regularly or they will have to explain why they spent all that money on new toys that never get used.

Personally, I think most departments would be better off disbanding the specialized units of dubious effectiveness and putting uniformed officers back on the street. many departments have well over half the force engaged in dubious activities like DARE, SWAT, plainclothes, and other units that have never shown any real success. I'd even say most detectives need to go back to the streets. Thats where the crooks are. Put the cops there to catch them.

 

[primer]

I understand it could be concidered a home invasion. I also know that the police know that if they knock on the door and wait for a responce, more than likely the whole time they are waiting the people inside could be arming themselves or flushing evidence down the toilet. This is the whole reason for these types of entries. Kind of a shock and awe type deal. Now, if this guy was your next door neighbor and has been running pot out of his house and possibly selling it to the neigborhood kids or YOUR kids. Would you want him caught? I understand that he had a clean record. A lot of people do when they first start messing around with drugs. But, they had to have a reason to be there. Either they saw him purchase drugs or saw him selling drugs or got a tip from an informant, ect. Knock, knock!! Who's there? The police! OH!! OK, be there in a minute "flush, flush" load, load. I'm coming! Boom!!! I don't like the possibility of my home being invaded any more than most of you do. So, I don't do any stupid stuff to give them a reason to. I still feel that I would have identified before shooting. If someone was kicking your door in and you didn't know who it was, would you stand out in the open and start shooting? Or would you get behind some type of cover. I would take cover and find out who was knocking my door in. By doing that you also have more time to drop your gun if it's the cops, because you have more time before they can target you. Of course that's if I wasn't breaking the law by having pot in my house. A little pot is still pot. It is against the law. Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.

 

[DENALI]

War on terror, War on drugs, War on the middle class it all equates to a thing called concept Warfare, and that equates to making some folks very, very wealthy...........

 

[average_shooter]

So, I don't do any stupid stuff to give them a reason to.

So if you being a gun owner were to become reason enough for them to kick down your door to round up all those evil guns, it's ok?

Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.

You're right, the law is the law. It is bad law, though. And we need to change the bad policy here. Alcohol prohibition did decades of harm to America and the "Drug War" is too. We changed one bad policy, we can change this one.

 

[doc2rn]

If the amount of pot was so meniscule as to be dumped down the toilet, then SWAT was actually doing a home invasion and are in the wrong. If they had knowledge of a previous crime at the residence and did not act on it they are in the wrong. If they did a no-knock warrant, they are in the wrong. Why do police get such latitude and the civilians get the bill for door, lawyer, court, and ammo. The little guy who is supposed to be getting the protection in these instances is becoming the victim.

 

[primer]

Oh, So when I was sixteen and was so high that I couldn't feel my legs it was ok that I was driving a car with the possibility that I could have killed an innocent family. I don't claim to be perfect, I know that what I did when I was younger was stupid. I just admitted that. I think drug laws are important. I don't think that bringing a person to jail for a little pot is stupid. I think it should be done. It's a law. If laws were a perfect solution there would be no problems today. Are you going to feel that way if some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone you love. I concider my right to carry a gun a right that our fore fathers secured for us. That's a little different than the right to drive under the influence. It doesn't exist. I'll tell you what. I'll contact my aunt and let her get on here. You can tell her that or drug laws and alcohol laws are stupid. BTW, Her niece was killed by a soldier who was home on leave and decided to get drunk. While he was drunk, he drove his car into a crowd of people. He spent 6 months in jail.

 

[QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW]

im sorry and i feel for both parties involved. BUT i would have done the same thing. if my place was broken into a week prior i would be on edge for quite a while like normal people be. i would have my 12 gauge next to me at all times as well as my hand gun on me. and if i herd someone trying to kick in my door unannounced i would yell for themt o leave and if they kept comming i would shoot.

but then again when your adrenalin in pumping you dont think you are scared from previous things a week prior and would just shoot as fredrick did. its just too bad that they didn't anounce who they where before entering. i think no knocks are asking for trouble. i would rather them know im comming and run then me run in and get shot by mistake.

 

[DENALI]

Why we have more then our share of para-militaries right here on THR, how about it? Just doing the job are we? After all any amount of dope is illegal dope under the rules of the war on drugs. And we musn't forget the CI's can we now, yes CI's were definitely involved with this operation weren't they? So we've got men just doing there jobs(Hey there kids gotta eat to) and men willing to rat each other out to the men just doing there jobs, and we have rules of engagement that let the men just doing there jobs kick in doors unannounced at any time of the day or night and tear your home apart, shoot you or your family or perhaps your dog and then haul anybody they want off to the dungeon and interrogate them further and generate more ratting out of men by men to the men just doing there jobs....I'm just old enough to remember other wars like this one............

 

[average_shooter]

Ok primer, let me tell you my thoughts on this:

The crime you did was not "getting high," the crime was endangering others when you drove. The crime of the soldier wasn't "getting drunk" the crime was murder and assault.

If you got so high you couldn't feel your legs but sat on the couch all night until you were straight again, as far as I'm concerned you committed no crime because you endangered nobody else. I don't care if you get so drunk you spend the following week puking, as long as you don't endanger others when you do so.

I also believe in personal responsibility. A person under the influence is just as responsible for their actions as a sober person. The crime isn't in ingesting the drug of choice, the crime is endangering or harming others. I've known plenty of people who make sure that if they're going to get high or drunk they do so in a place where they can stay until they get sober. That's the responsible thing to do and I have no problem with it.

Similarly, gun ownership or possession should not be the crime, the crime should be in threatening or harming others.

I don't care what you do as long as nobody gets hurt. But if you threaten someone or hurt someone you're going to be in trouble.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant, whether they did knock and announce then is more of the issue. did they or didn't they?

There is VERY little functional difference between a "knock & announce" and a "no knock" these days. The courts have determined that a "reasonable" length of time for the police to wait after knocking is 20 to 30 seconds. Think about that. It's 3:00 a.m. You worked until 9:00 p.m., came home exhausted, grabbed a hamburger and fell into bed. More than likely, if you sleep in an upstaris bedroom as I do, you can't even hear a normal knock on the front door, and even if the police were down there pounding on the door with their fists -- would you realistically be able to wake up, focus, realize that the noise is someone pounding on the front door, find your bedroom slippers, and go answer the door all within 20 to 30 seconds?

I couldn't. I'd still be asleep when they came up the stairs.

No knocks are bad news, but so are the ridiculously short wait times allowed by the courts. The premise of a search "warrant" is that the person is supposed to be allowed to see, read, and understand the warrant BEFORE admitting the officers into the house. Once they've busted in and handcuffed the victim subject, who is going to be watching to ensure that they limit their search to what and where is specified in the warrant?

The system stinks and needs to be drastically curtailed. We need to get nack to knocking on the door in broad daylight, handing the resident a copy of the warrant and letting them read it, and THEN entering. Force is appropriate only if the resident refuses to honor a legitimate warrant, or in the case of searching for a violent fugitive. Never for a few leaves of cannabis.

 

[primer]

Yeah, I guess I see your point. Cops shouldn't be allowed to kick down your doors even if you have drugs in your home. Just because you have drugs, doesn't mean you would sell them or anything. I'm sure 100% of Americans are responsible enough not to do drugs in their own home them drive to the store when they get the munchies. And I know that no drug dealers use their home as a drug distribution point. That would just be stupid, so I guess we could do away with drug raids. The cops, in an effort to stop all the accidental killing should just call and make an appointment, so that it wouldn't turn into a gun battle. I know I'm getting sick and tired of all of the reports I've been hearing about cops slaying whole families. I mean where do they get off doing a drug raid when the dealers family is still at home. Don't they have the responsibility to not let the drug dealer have the drugs around their families. All these people keep saying that it's the drug dealers responsibility to take care of his own family and not get them involved in a drug raid. Where do they get off putting that on the dealers. They should just leave the dealers alone so that they can sell their drugs and not worry about finding the dealers source. I mean, they need to be able to support their dealers so that they can get their next shipment to America and into the hands of my children as fast as possible. I'm getting tired of all these nights of sleeping perfectly fine. My son needs to hurry up and have his next overdose. You starting to get my point, Yet?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

At least that's what I recall...

Either you recall incorrectly, or your local PD isn't big on playing by the rules. Smashing in the door before making any announcement is a "no knock," not a "knock & announce." The courts have clearly established that in a knock & announce, the police MUST wait a "reasonable" time before effecting a forced entry.

Of course, what the same courts have determined to be a "reasonable" time is anything but reasonable, but it isn't instantaneous.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.

You're right, the law is the law. It is bad law, though. And we need to change the bad policy here. Alcohol prohibition did decades of harm to America and the "Drug War" is too. We changed one bad policy, we can change this one.

But the police DO have the option of deciding to seek a no knock warrant. And they DO have the option of choosing to serve any search warrant in daylight rather than smashing in the door in the middle of the night.

In other words, they have a choice between choosing to act like professional law enforcement officers, or acting like home invaders. Unfortunately, they are regularly (and increasingly) choosing the latter.

 

[average_shooter]

Primer, you are using the same old emotional argument tactics that anti-gun folks use. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Let me ask you, how many people are killed over cigarettes these days? How many raids are done on homes illegally making and distributing alcohol?

Under prohibition it is easier for your kid to get drugs than it is to get tobacco or alcohol. Think about this for a second, please. I don't want your kids doing drugs any more than you do. That's why I want them legally regulated.

How easy is it for your child to get cigarettes? How easy is it for your child to get alcohol? I couldn't get either when I was in high school. But I could have had any illicit drug of my choice if I wanted to and had the money.