I assume most have heard about the Amir Locke case in Minneapolis. I’m having trouble with the supposed rationale for no-knock warrants, that is, officer safety. It seems to me that ANYONE is going to go for a gun when they realize that an intruder is forcing his way into their home and they don’t know who it is. This would seem to make officers serving a warrant substantially LESS safe than they would be if they just knocked on the door and announced themselves. I’d be interested in hearing from any law enforcement officers out there on this issue, especially those who have experience with warrants.
That’s why they should only be used to catch an actual danger off-guard and not just to prevent someone from flushing dope.
No knock warrants are illegal and dangerous. Anyone busts into my house is going to have a gun pointed at them, whether its a burglar or a cop. They immediately put everyone involved into a life or death situation. But, i dont have qualified immunity, so im dead.
In the U.S. no knock warrants are legal when signed off by a judge
IMO…they should NOT be legal
There are times a no-knock warrant is appropriate, but it’s not often. Credible threat to shoot officers on sight? Appropriate. Chance that dope is getting flushed? Not appropriate.
I think it’s very difficult to draft literature that presents “one size fits all” coverage that would effectively keep officers AND citizens safe. I believe current legal terminology is ambiguous, which can lead to situations like this.
Strongly dislike no-knock warrants, but dont want to see more officers get hurt.
The problem for me is that in the seconds after the police make entry, it’s likely that the occupant has no idea who just came in, so the occupant is likely to shoot on sight, even if the occupant ordinarily is law-abiding and ordinarily would cooperate with police. That appears to be what happened here, that is, Locke had no record, and was startled from his sleep by the police busting in.
If the person is so dangerous that he would shoot cops on sight, why can’t the police just surround the place to close of any escape, and then announce their presence? What’s the suspect going to do? He might be a pain in the ass and barricade himself inside for a few hours, but eventually he’s going to surrender.
This statement is missing context. Video surveillance showed a car fleeing the scene of a murder, going into this building, and having 3 unidentified people come out. They watched video surveillance inside the apartment complex and saw each of these 3 suspects going into their different rooms.
They looked in the other 2 rooms first with no one home, then got to Amir’s apartment. Whether it was Amir or his cousin (it was actually his cousin’s apartment) who was fleeing the scene is unknown.
Not taking sides in this, I think it is an oversight of the law; still the legality of this no knock warrant is in question.
Side note: not that it is illegal to do so, but he was seemingly awoken from his sleep and already had a gun in hand before getting out from the covers… Who TF actually sleeps with a handgun under the pillow 24/7? Especially in your cousin’s apartment. Again, not illegal, but it sure is suspicious…
If he’s ordinarily law-abiding and cooperative, he doesn’t present a credible threat to shoot on sight. Guy has plenty of weaponry and has declared he’ll shoot officers on his property? Most likely is going to be asleep at some point, and that’s the time to make entry quickly and have the guy in cuffs before he can get out of bed.
Interesting. Ill let the judge know that he’s doing illegal stuff.
We RARELY use them and only under very certain circumstances.
They’re never used for dope cases. This was for a murder suspect.
Ive been on over 500 search warrants. Cant remember our last no knock.
“You have to go back years to understand why we have no knocks,” said Thor Eells, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. "They were developed as a tool, through courts, for the preservation of evidence … primarily crack cocaine. "
I’m unaware of one ever being executed where I am either, but it’s why they became a thing.
Times have changed. Which im ok with. We do a lot of surround and call outs now. Our tactics are always evolving.
On the general topic of shitty policies that need to be reviewed ASAP, is civil forfeiture.
Its such bullshit and extremely unconstitutional. Yet it persists.
Remember, on duty police officers are not your friends. Never consent to a search when asked.
Side note, im proud to say its outlawed in my new state SC.
When I read stuff about states’ rights and questioning the federal government, I see right through to the real motivations behind the article: slavery and racism.
It’s not even that. Why would you even let your friend search your car, home, or person?
That’s a good policy. If they have a reason, they are going to search you; if you’re asked for consent, they at least have some doubt.
Shut up you dope… Very few police officers are out to “get you” or fuck with you for no reason. Christ i cant leave this job soon enough.
We ask for consent for good reason. No idea why these dullards think we enjoy wasting our time or want to just harass people. They’re clueless. I always ask politely. If they refuse i say no problem. If i have probable cause or reasonable suspicion… Its gonna happen.
And guess what… Way more often than not we get drugs, guns, etc…
I didnt say they were. The point being, no matter how honest a person is, never trust an agent of the state. Its not the man behind the badge we should be skeptical of, its the badge.