12 ms·

Rand Paul says no-knock warrants 'should be forbidden' in wake of shooting

241 points by miles 6y ago

d1str0 6y ago
Are there any good, constitutionally sound arguments FOR no knocks?
- iphone_elegance 6y ago
  No
  - sida 6y ago
    I mean what about kidnapping / hostage situation. Is this more about exercising judgement? Many first-world countries have no-knock warranty but really only the US has so many issues
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  You could always construct a hypothetical that goes beyond destruction of evidence. A kidnapping/hostage situation, for instance.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > A kidnapping/hostage situation, for instance. A situation like that probably doesn't require a warrant because it probably falls under the "hot pursuit" exception.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      non-American here. What about a situation were someone is suspected of say, having abducted a child? Hot pursuit like sounds like it involves some sort of immediate chase. Or say a situation where domestic violence plays a role and someone would be threatened if the police announced themselves
      - CodeWriter23 6y ago
        I believe the proper term is exigency. In exigent circumstances including the one you mention, police are empowered to pursue with few limitations.
- nickff 6y ago
  The constitution doesn't specifically address no-knock warrants, other than by incorporating practice at the time of the founding. Therefore, there are no consitutionally sound arguments for or against them. I think no-knock warrants should be abandoned, because they are dangerous and of limited value, but neither of those reasons are constitutional arguments.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" I would argue that police officers transition into soldiers of the state when they hold what soldiers hold (bullet proof vests, flash grenades, automatic machine guns) and arrive in vehicles soldiers arrive in (MRAPs and other APCs). No-knock warrants are essentially the government choosing to "quarter" soldiers inside of some random person's house without their consent, for an unlimited amount of time. Of course, the Constitution doesn't specify what the difference between a police officer and a soldier is, which I think is an important argument for the Supreme Court to hear anyways. A lot of what the police are (unfairly) allowed to do today stems from this blurred line. In most cases, soldiers are constrained even more than police are (i.e. Rules of Engagement).
    - bawolff 6y ago
      That's quite a stretch. To quarter means to live somewhere not to violently search something. IANAL but naively i would think that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." would be applicable, since its kind of unreasonsble to do a no-knock warrant when a normal search would be fully sufficient.
- choward 6y ago
  What about the patriot act that they just reauthorized?
  - iscrewyou 6y ago
    What about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- vanadium 6y ago
  Read up on the reporting from Radley Balko, for Cato Institute, Reason, and the Washington Post more recently. His work on kicking down every possible justification for no-knock warrants and militarized civilian police forces is the best out there. I believe he also authored a book on the topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko
  - dnautics 6y ago
    He also arguably saved the life of Cory Maye by relentlessly shining light on the situation. Balko is a hero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARvUF9GNes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARvUF9GNes
    - vanadium 6y ago
      He absolutely is; I had been doing work for Reason for some years inclusive of the Cory Maye work, and met him for a short time. Not only is he a great guy to have a beer with, it was probably the most satisfying work of my career helping to amplify the visibility of his efforts.
    - 0xddd 6y ago
      Unfortunately, the third part is missing from youtube. Full video here https://reason.com/video/mississippi-drug-war-blues/ https://reason.com/video/mississippi-drug-war-blues/.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Is there a good constitutional argument against no-knock warrants? Constitution says no unreasonable searches or seizure without a warrant. With no-knock warrants, there is warrant, so it isn't a constitutional issue. Just ban them. Everything doesn't have to be a foundational constitutional issue.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    I think the reason people like a constitutional answer is that there is one answer for the entire country. Otherwise you’d need 51 different bans.
    - WillPostForFood 6y ago
      That’s a feature, not a bug.
  - jeffdavis 6y ago
    The text of the 4th could be interpeted to prohibit that kind of search. There are reasonable searches without warrants as well as unreasonable searches with warrants.
    - WillPostForFood 6y ago
      I've read the 4th amendment as a limitation on what can be done without a warrant, not with a warrant. But reflecting on what you wrote, and re-reading the 4th amendment, you are right, that having a warrant doesn't mean a search is automatically reasonable.
  - masonic 6y ago
    No-knock warrants can only be justified in cases where the evidence sought can be quickly destroyed, such as a small amount of soluble or combustible material, or written material (especially on "flashpaper"). In the Branch Davidian raid in 1993, Janet Reno's crew had sought a no-knock warrant, but they were denied because the objects of the warrant (fully automatic guns and conversion kits) can't be quickly destroyed. They used no-knock tactics anyway.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Constitutional law, like any ancient code base, has picked up some serious cruft. It is impossible to divine from the text what it means. Legal scholars don't even agree about basic questions like "can a professor publish a paper that lacks citations to relevant work, without violating securities law?" [1]. The odds of getting useful conlaw analysis on HN are nill. That being said, we shouldn't always be looking to the COTUS to save us. Congress exists to make laws. If we want this practice banned, we need to enact a law to ban it. [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/15/sec-commissioner-law-professor-wrongfully-accuse-srp-of-securities-fraud/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/15/sec-commissioner-...
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    > It is impossible to divine from the text what it means. I don't buy that though, it wasn't written in Ancient Koine Greek or Hebrew on lost tablets, heck it wasn't written that long ago compared to ancient texts and scriptures! We've got books and legal cases to reference and confirm what was meant, we even know all about the first cases handled by the Supreme Court. The moment people start to interpret instead of reading it literally and based upon the historical context (seeking refuge from tyranny) is the moment they get confused and get the whole thing wrong.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      I'm always curious about this. Coming from a country with no Constitution - what makes this document so revered? Why does the opinion of a few dozen landed gentry from a few hundred years ago supercede all modern legal and political opinion and research?
      - donavanm 6y ago
        They dont, amendments exist. Its entirely possible for the states to agree to new rules that will supersede the previous law of the land. They do because they establish basic strictures on the federal government itself. Critically the constitution, and bill of rights, outline what powers are granted to the federal government and which are expressly reserved for the states and citizens. Its the inverse of many (most?) countries that Ive seen. The fed government was granted limited, specific, powers by its constituents. The states and citizens do not derive their rights & powers from the federal government.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  It became a big thing because of the drug war, if you knock and announce yourself people will flush their drugs. The Drug War: the gift that keeps on giving.
  - qball 6y ago
    Except, of course, that that's 100% Hollywood. You can't flush a very large quantity of drugs when the police knock on your door. Not only would you have to do a very extensive amount of pre-planning to destroy evidence, but 2 minutes is not nearly enough time to flush a sellable stash (i.e. if you're a dealer). Sure, I guess you could have search warrants for small amounts of drugs (i.e. someone you just sold to), but to be perfectly honest kicking in doors over very small amounts of drugs (i.e. an end user) is beneath the dignity of the state to prosecute in that manner. And even if you could flush your entire stash, you get a warrant either for the septic tank contents or what's about to enter the sewer. Almost like you have to do actual police work rather than kicking in someone's door in the middle of the night, throwing flashbangs into cribs, and massacring homeowners who dared defend themselves against what in any other circumstance would obviously be a violent home invasion. (It should be absolutely embarrassing that laws get made like this; a lot of gun law is based on what Hollywood says about them rather than their reality.)
    - SWIMdealsReally 6y ago
      To add on to this, small-time distributors usually have a "clean house" policy. Drugs are stored off-property or in places where further search warrants are required, like a safe, or a locked toolshed. In the event something tips them off, they "clean house" and relocate their stash. It's also dead simple to "stealth" processed drugs -- so simple in-fact that these drugs come in by foot, plane, and cargo boat seemlessly. The only thing you need to worry about is transportation in a vehicle with a tiny solution space for where the drugs could be hidden, upon a search, such as say a small boat or plane. Cars are hit or miss, because a few officers only deal with the dumbest of the dumb drug user day-to-day, while the coast guard has experience with more elaborate setups. It's kind of ironic. Cops busting down dumb dealers has a way of culling the herd, removing the worst-prepared, and giving more information to the most-prepared, to be even better prepared.
synsynack 6y ago
Why not just issue a warrant to drill a hole for a camera, or use other tech to passively see through walls? Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use.
- ftvy 6y ago
  There is precedent for a similar idea that worked well in criminal investigations. A documentary was made about it called Crack House USA https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991025/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991025/ where law enforcement obtained property and the appropriate warrants for their investigation. A real slice of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COa2t_m1K7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COa2t_m1K7I for those who aren't adverse to Google's tentacles.
- icelancer 6y ago
  >> Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use. Civil forfeiture is another huge reason. Not about killing them, but taking their property.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  Probably a ton of paper work.
epistasis 6y ago
IIRC, the police officers wore plainsclothes, and did not announce themselves. They arrested the murdered woman's boyfriend for his self defense of armed intrusion. The person they were serving the warrant on was already in custody. Clearly these cops are criminals. There's nothing else that can explain the circumstances here.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Incompetence of course but that shouldn't be a defense.
- sdhrnrhbrt 6y ago
  The warrant story is a lame cover up. I'm curious what they were up to really that night.
- jsnk 6y ago
  Police is complicit but you have to go up a couple more pay grades up in order to get to the root cause. Who introduced such measure and who is perpetuating it and why?
dependenttypes 6y ago
> Taylor's death has ignited a firestorm across the nation in recent weeks, as prominent activists and politicians questioned why an unarmed black woman had been gunned down by white officers The whole police immunity for murder and violence needs to stop. If a civilian did something similar even if under worse conditions they would be treated horribly by the cops and be put to jail under shitty conditions for years. A policeman can easily say "I was worried for my life!" when shooting an unarmed person but a civilians can't say the same thing if they shoot a cop that invaded their house, or even another civilian. Hell, the police can even demolish your house during an investigation and they don't have to pay anything for it. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/ https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-gr...
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Or you know, when they don't shoot / arrest people of a different pigmentation who do have guns and go for their guns: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/08/02/10/Confederate-Flag-Rally-3-AP.jpg https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag... Saw that one making the rounds again, and I gotta say, you don't grab a gun unless you're about to shoot period. Edit: Fix typo: sad -> saw
  - azinman2 6y ago
    What’s the context of this photo?
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      A few months after the Charleston massacre, several white nationalist groups held a confederate flag rally at Stone Mountain, a monument to the confederacy and the birthplace of the second KKK. Police were there to keep the rally and protestors separate and as tensions flared, dude reached for his gun: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tensions-flare-as-confederate-flag-supporter-reaches-for-gun-when-confronted-by-protests-in-pictures-10433094.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tensions-f...
Damorian 6y ago
I see a lot of people outraged and making emotional appeals. The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion. There's an estimated 8000-50,000 no-knock raids per year (sources have numbers all over the place, Vox seems convinced it's 20,000) and since 1980, only 40 innocent bystanders have been killed. Overall, the risk of either an officer or civilian dying is ~1/1000. I'm not finding any good sources on how many people are arrested, or what the warrant is typically for, which is important to weigh the benefits. Incidents where they get the house wrong or an innocent person is hurt are newsworthy because they're rare and they can rile people up along political lines and push an agenda. If there's a warrant for a dangerous person's arrest and you expect them to fight back, I'd rather that be in a no-knock raid in the middle of the night at their home with 50 police using military hardware, than one or two cops at a traffic stop that turns into a high speed chase/shootout in a busy public area.
- quaunaut 6y ago
  While 20,000 is a hell of a number per year, it's worth noting that we're not 100% sure it's only 40 innocent bystanders- for example, in this case it wouldn't have been deemed as such if the boyfriend hadn't survived. What I'd be interested in, is how many no-knock warrants result in any shooting or casualties whatsoever. If that's still a really low number, this may not be as warranted.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  > “The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion.” When they happen frequently enough, you’re always in the wake of a tragedy, and this becomes an excuse to perpetually do nothing. It’s like after every US school shooting it’s always “too soon to talk about legislation.”
- pmorici 6y ago
  The justification in this case and in general isn't about the person being dangerous it's justified under the auspices that they might destroy evidence. It isn't obvious to me that the risk of confusing people about what is going on and causing a situation where they think they need to fight back against home invaders outweighs the 20 seconds of warning a "dangerous" person might get because the cops don't knock.
54351623 6y ago
I appreciate Mr. Paul's sentiment and agree with him. I would like to see him go further though and end the drug war that the US gov has waged against the American people. I think these no-knock warrants and other systemic, organized violence committed by a militarized civilian law enforcement is largely enabled by this war.
runawaybottle 6y ago
This suggestion is going to sound stupid, but what is the current tech and cost of bullet proof riot shields? Could we use technology to re-train and equip officers with shields and non lethal weapons to eliminate the fear of death, and unnecessary fatalities? What would the price be? A few billion?
- augustt 6y ago
  The premise here is wrong. These guys aren't looking for better ways to deescalate - they're itching to kill. Never forget the UPS shootout last December where 19 cops opened fired, killing the hostage and a bystander, taking cover behind the cars of families.
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    It’s more in response to the litany of cases where cops reacted by shooting. It sounds like a ridiculous idea for sure, but where are we exactly with full body armor and bullet proof visors (full body suit is even better than just a frontal bulletproof shield)? If we’re already there with the tech, then we can disarm them of guns and basically remove a scenario where a cop can kill. We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers.
    - icelancer 6y ago
      >> We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers. These are exceptionally unreliable weapons. There's no real way to bulletproof a cop. Armor piercing .223 can go through pretty much any reasonable body armor / shields you would wear into a situation like this and is readily available to fire out of AR-15s and the like.
      - runawaybottle 6y ago
        Thanks, I was probing to see where we were at with the tech. Would it ever be possible?
kenneth 6y ago
I feel like, in general, in most countries around the world, the police are bad people and not trustworthy. I have little respect for the police, and usually abide by a personal policy of avoiding them, and refusing to cooperate whenever possible. In my one run-in with the police in the bay area, after I was mugged at gunpoint and called the police immediately after, they were entirely unreliable and unhelpful. They refused to go after the perpetrators despite having a clear opportunity to at the time. In many countries, the police is corrupt, harassing civilians to extort them into giving bribes. In Indonesia, planting drugs during a stop to extort money out of tourists is a well known scam. A drivers license check is never passed without a bribe (amounting to the entire contents of your wallet). In Hong Kong, where I live now, the police has a history of brutally repressing peaceful protests, including the shooting of unarmed civilians, and the cover-up of multiple rapes and murders perpetrated by policemen. Oftentimes, even when they are not outrightly criminal, the police is there to enforce awful laws that infringe on people's basic human rights. Fuck the police.
- alharith 6y ago
  The “I had a bad experience therefore we must burn the whole system down” line of reasoning is a sign of immaturity. Police serve a vital role in many communities in the US. For every bad story that catches headlines there are hundreds more good acts that go unnoticed. The US is very different than a brutalist authoritarian regime, even with a wanna-be authoritarian in the White House.
- mseidl 6y ago
  I live in Germany and in 2015 our police, for the whole year, in the whole country only fired 88 bullets. Germans go through 3 years of training and have a lot of training on non-violent/lethal deescalation. I also used to live in the US, and the cops there are nuts. Jon Oliver did a good video on accountability: https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    We Germans aren't perfect either, not a single cop got prosecuted for the police violence at G20, and we routinely get scandals for Nazi cops or a lack of accountability...
ngold 6y ago
Of all the non politics and general news, how does a rand Paul article get through? Besides being a horrible human being, why? Thanksgiving dinners must be so awkward with his dad.
mnm1 6y ago
So I assume Paul will introduce a bill to end this in his next session. Or this is him just blowing hot air and a problem he only wants to pretend to solve. We'll know soon enough. My money is on the latter. You don't get to his level of politics in the US without kissing some major law enforcement asses. And those are some giant asses.
- mansion7 6y ago
  It does sound like something he might do. He has sponsored, consponsored, and supported bills to fund police body cameras, impose limits on roving surveillance, reduce or eliminate harsh treatment of prisoners, eliminate indefinite detentions, provide for sealing or expulsion of non-violent offenses, amend the controlled substances act, reform asset forfeiture laws,etc.
Corrado 6y ago
I have some experience with the police force and I think the problem may run deeper and be a bit less dramatic, and I think this might be true nationwide. The gist is that benefits and compensation for police officers have been going down in recent years. Lower pay, worse insurance, no retirement; all of these things lead to less, and less qualified, applicants. This drives down the employment requirements and removes the older, more level-headed officers. In the past they required a college degree; now it's just a high school diploma or GED. In the past they provided plenty of training (ie. time on the range; de-escalation procedures, etc.); now you get 12 bullets twice a year for certification. In the past you received a good pension and great insurance; now if you die on the job your family gets nothing. Who in the world would WANT to be a police officer in this situation!? You get little pay, little respect, and you have to run into the problem while everyone else runs away. This is in no way an excuse for what happened in my town (Louisville, KY) but I thought it might shed some light as to why it happened. I don't think cops are bad people and it only takes a few to really drag them all down. They are generally just people trying to go to work and make a living. The vast, vast majority of police officers don't wake up wanting to end someone's life. They just want to make their town a bit safer and stay alive to spend time with their families.
- alexashka 6y ago
  Sounds just like the school teachers. Bunch of knuckleheads teaching our children and protecting us from criminals, oh and there is no universal health care either. What a great country, this USA.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    With all the lockdown / home-schooling, my (probably misplaced) hope would be that teaching, as a career, is given more respect and the earning capacity that goes with the recognition of how important teaching is to the general functioning of society. Teachers raise our kids for fucks sake. Knuckleheads, and there are plenty, will bring them down, and that affects the whole of society for a long time. Attracting better quality teachers raises all boats. But then Nursing, that also needs more respect for the shit, often literally, they face day in day out. Police, fuck, if you can't trust them to do the right thing, then what's the fucking point in the first place?. Get the right people, and the people right. Paying peanuts gets monkeys, and monkeys throw shit everywhere. I'm overpaid for what I do and it's effect on society. I'm hoping that the pandemic will cause at least somewhat of an adjustment, but my world-wise cynicism leans towards further adjustment in the wrong direction.
fake-name 6y ago
I guess it's that rare time where the stopped clock that is Rand Paul is correct again.
- remote_phone 6y ago
  Seriously. He may be right on this issue, but fuck him for trying to out the whistleblower. That was a blatant disregard for the law and he should have been thrown in jail. It was disgusting.
  - notmarkus 6y ago
    What was disgusting about it?
praptak 6y ago
No-knock is obviously unavoidable at times. But it should only be done by specially trained police units, including the training not to shoot unarmed people. I believe it's done this way in most Western countries.
the_absurdist 6y ago
The credibility bias that flows from local judicial systems to local law enforcement needs systematic measurement, analysis, and mitigation.
Spearchucker 6y ago
In Europe many just shake their heads and say "Only in America." German police (I'm sure many other police forces too) specifically first aim for the leg.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Fyi, in China, the prime majority of police officers are prohibited from carrying firearms
- masonic 6y ago
  specifically first aim for the leg Even if that's really a thing there, U.S. case law makes it clear that if an officer has the luxury of just winging a perp, then her life was not in imminent danger and therefore use of deadly force was improper in the first place.

241 points by miles 6y ago

d1str0 6y ago

Are there any good, constitutionally sound arguments FOR no knocks?

iphone_elegance 6y ago
No
- sida 6y ago
  I mean what about kidnapping / hostage situation. Is this more about exercising judgement? Many first-world countries have no-knock warranty but really only the US has so many issues
SamReidHughes 6y ago
You could always construct a hypothetical that goes beyond destruction of evidence. A kidnapping/hostage situation, for instance.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > A kidnapping/hostage situation, for instance. A situation like that probably doesn't require a warrant because it probably falls under the "hot pursuit" exception.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    non-American here. What about a situation were someone is suspected of say, having abducted a child? Hot pursuit like sounds like it involves some sort of immediate chase. Or say a situation where domestic violence plays a role and someone would be threatened if the police announced themselves
    - CodeWriter23 6y ago
      I believe the proper term is exigency. In exigent circumstances including the one you mention, police are empowered to pursue with few limitations.
nickff 6y ago
The constitution doesn't specifically address no-knock warrants, other than by incorporating practice at the time of the founding. Therefore, there are no consitutionally sound arguments for or against them. I think no-knock warrants should be abandoned, because they are dangerous and of limited value, but neither of those reasons are constitutional arguments.
- nexuist 6y ago
  "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" I would argue that police officers transition into soldiers of the state when they hold what soldiers hold (bullet proof vests, flash grenades, automatic machine guns) and arrive in vehicles soldiers arrive in (MRAPs and other APCs). No-knock warrants are essentially the government choosing to "quarter" soldiers inside of some random person's house without their consent, for an unlimited amount of time. Of course, the Constitution doesn't specify what the difference between a police officer and a soldier is, which I think is an important argument for the Supreme Court to hear anyways. A lot of what the police are (unfairly) allowed to do today stems from this blurred line. In most cases, soldiers are constrained even more than police are (i.e. Rules of Engagement).
  - bawolff 6y ago
    That's quite a stretch. To quarter means to live somewhere not to violently search something. IANAL but naively i would think that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." would be applicable, since its kind of unreasonsble to do a no-knock warrant when a normal search would be fully sufficient.
choward 6y ago
What about the patriot act that they just reauthorized?
- iscrewyou 6y ago
  What about it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
vanadium 6y ago
Read up on the reporting from Radley Balko, for Cato Institute, Reason, and the Washington Post more recently. His work on kicking down every possible justification for no-knock warrants and militarized civilian police forces is the best out there. I believe he also authored a book on the topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radley_Balko
- dnautics 6y ago
  He also arguably saved the life of Cory Maye by relentlessly shining light on the situation. Balko is a hero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARvUF9GNes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ARvUF9GNes
  - vanadium 6y ago
    He absolutely is; I had been doing work for Reason for some years inclusive of the Cory Maye work, and met him for a short time. Not only is he a great guy to have a beer with, it was probably the most satisfying work of my career helping to amplify the visibility of his efforts.
  - 0xddd 6y ago
    Unfortunately, the third part is missing from youtube. Full video here https://reason.com/video/mississippi-drug-war-blues/ https://reason.com/video/mississippi-drug-war-blues/.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
Is there a good constitutional argument against no-knock warrants? Constitution says no unreasonable searches or seizure without a warrant. With no-knock warrants, there is warrant, so it isn't a constitutional issue. Just ban them. Everything doesn't have to be a foundational constitutional issue.
- kube-system 6y ago
  I think the reason people like a constitutional answer is that there is one answer for the entire country. Otherwise you’d need 51 different bans.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    That’s a feature, not a bug.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  The text of the 4th could be interpeted to prohibit that kind of search. There are reasonable searches without warrants as well as unreasonable searches with warrants.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    I've read the 4th amendment as a limitation on what can be done without a warrant, not with a warrant. But reflecting on what you wrote, and re-reading the 4th amendment, you are right, that having a warrant doesn't mean a search is automatically reasonable.
- masonic 6y ago
  No-knock warrants can only be justified in cases where the evidence sought can be quickly destroyed, such as a small amount of soluble or combustible material, or written material (especially on "flashpaper"). In the Branch Davidian raid in 1993, Janet Reno's crew had sought a no-knock warrant, but they were denied because the objects of the warrant (fully automatic guns and conversion kits) can't be quickly destroyed. They used no-knock tactics anyway.
rmrfstar 6y ago
Constitutional law, like any ancient code base, has picked up some serious cruft. It is impossible to divine from the text what it means. Legal scholars don't even agree about basic questions like "can a professor publish a paper that lacks citations to relevant work, without violating securities law?" [1]. The odds of getting useful conlaw analysis on HN are nill. That being said, we shouldn't always be looking to the COTUS to save us. Congress exists to make laws. If we want this practice banned, we need to enact a law to ban it. [1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/15/sec-commissioner-law-professor-wrongfully-accuse-srp-of-securities-fraud/ https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/15/sec-commissioner-...
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  > It is impossible to divine from the text what it means. I don't buy that though, it wasn't written in Ancient Koine Greek or Hebrew on lost tablets, heck it wasn't written that long ago compared to ancient texts and scriptures! We've got books and legal cases to reference and confirm what was meant, we even know all about the first cases handled by the Supreme Court. The moment people start to interpret instead of reading it literally and based upon the historical context (seeking refuge from tyranny) is the moment they get confused and get the whole thing wrong.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I'm always curious about this. Coming from a country with no Constitution - what makes this document so revered? Why does the opinion of a few dozen landed gentry from a few hundred years ago supercede all modern legal and political opinion and research?
    - donavanm 6y ago
      They dont, amendments exist. Its entirely possible for the states to agree to new rules that will supersede the previous law of the land. They do because they establish basic strictures on the federal government itself. Critically the constitution, and bill of rights, outline what powers are granted to the federal government and which are expressly reserved for the states and citizens. Its the inverse of many (most?) countries that Ive seen. The fed government was granted limited, specific, powers by its constituents. The states and citizens do not derive their rights & powers from the federal government.
Consultant32452 6y ago
It became a big thing because of the drug war, if you knock and announce yourself people will flush their drugs. The Drug War: the gift that keeps on giving.
- qball 6y ago
  Except, of course, that that's 100% Hollywood. You can't flush a very large quantity of drugs when the police knock on your door. Not only would you have to do a very extensive amount of pre-planning to destroy evidence, but 2 minutes is not nearly enough time to flush a sellable stash (i.e. if you're a dealer). Sure, I guess you could have search warrants for small amounts of drugs (i.e. someone you just sold to), but to be perfectly honest kicking in doors over very small amounts of drugs (i.e. an end user) is beneath the dignity of the state to prosecute in that manner. And even if you could flush your entire stash, you get a warrant either for the septic tank contents or what's about to enter the sewer. Almost like you have to do actual police work rather than kicking in someone's door in the middle of the night, throwing flashbangs into cribs, and massacring homeowners who dared defend themselves against what in any other circumstance would obviously be a violent home invasion. (It should be absolutely embarrassing that laws get made like this; a lot of gun law is based on what Hollywood says about them rather than their reality.)
  - SWIMdealsReally 6y ago
    To add on to this, small-time distributors usually have a "clean house" policy. Drugs are stored off-property or in places where further search warrants are required, like a safe, or a locked toolshed. In the event something tips them off, they "clean house" and relocate their stash. It's also dead simple to "stealth" processed drugs -- so simple in-fact that these drugs come in by foot, plane, and cargo boat seemlessly. The only thing you need to worry about is transportation in a vehicle with a tiny solution space for where the drugs could be hidden, upon a search, such as say a small boat or plane. Cars are hit or miss, because a few officers only deal with the dumbest of the dumb drug user day-to-day, while the coast guard has experience with more elaborate setups. It's kind of ironic. Cops busting down dumb dealers has a way of culling the herd, removing the worst-prepared, and giving more information to the most-prepared, to be even better prepared.

synsynack 6y ago

Why not just issue a warrant to drill a hole for a camera, or use other tech to passively see through walls? Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use.

ftvy 6y ago
There is precedent for a similar idea that worked well in criminal investigations. A documentary was made about it called Crack House USA https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991025/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1991025/ where law enforcement obtained property and the appropriate warrants for their investigation. A real slice of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COa2t_m1K7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COa2t_m1K7I for those who aren't adverse to Google's tentacles.
icelancer 6y ago
>> Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use. Civil forfeiture is another huge reason. Not about killing them, but taking their property.
runawaybottle 6y ago
Probably a ton of paper work.

epistasis 6y ago

IIRC, the police officers wore plainsclothes, and did not announce themselves. They arrested the murdered woman's boyfriend for his self defense of armed intrusion. The person they were serving the warrant on was already in custody. Clearly these cops are criminals. There's nothing else that can explain the circumstances here.

arcticbull 6y ago
Incompetence of course but that shouldn't be a defense.
sdhrnrhbrt 6y ago
The warrant story is a lame cover up. I'm curious what they were up to really that night.
jsnk 6y ago
Police is complicit but you have to go up a couple more pay grades up in order to get to the root cause. Who introduced such measure and who is perpetuating it and why?

dependenttypes 6y ago

> Taylor's death has ignited a firestorm across the nation in recent weeks, as prominent activists and politicians questioned why an unarmed black woman had been gunned down by white officers The whole police immunity for murder and violence needs to stop. If a civilian did something similar even if under worse conditions they would be treated horribly by the cops and be put to jail under shitty conditions for years. A policeman can easily say "I was worried for my life!" when shooting an unarmed person but a civilians can't say the same thing if they shoot a cop that invaded their house, or even another civilian. Hell, the police can even demolish your house during an investigation and they don't have to pay anything for it. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood-village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/ https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-gr...

giancarlostoro 6y ago
Or you know, when they don't shoot / arrest people of a different pigmentation who do have guns and go for their guns: https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/08/02/10/Confederate-Flag-Rally-3-AP.jpg https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag... Saw that one making the rounds again, and I gotta say, you don't grab a gun unless you're about to shoot period. Edit: Fix typo: sad -> saw
- azinman2 6y ago
  What’s the context of this photo?
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    A few months after the Charleston massacre, several white nationalist groups held a confederate flag rally at Stone Mountain, a monument to the confederacy and the birthplace of the second KKK. Police were there to keep the rally and protestors separate and as tensions flared, dude reached for his gun: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tensions-flare-as-confederate-flag-supporter-reaches-for-gun-when-confronted-by-protests-in-pictures-10433094.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tensions-f...

Damorian 6y ago

I see a lot of people outraged and making emotional appeals. The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion. There's an estimated 8000-50,000 no-knock raids per year (sources have numbers all over the place, Vox seems convinced it's 20,000) and since 1980, only 40 innocent bystanders have been killed. Overall, the risk of either an officer or civilian dying is ~1/1000. I'm not finding any good sources on how many people are arrested, or what the warrant is typically for, which is important to weigh the benefits. Incidents where they get the house wrong or an innocent person is hurt are newsworthy because they're rare and they can rile people up along political lines and push an agenda. If there's a warrant for a dangerous person's arrest and you expect them to fight back, I'd rather that be in a no-knock raid in the middle of the night at their home with 50 police using military hardware, than one or two cops at a traffic stop that turns into a high speed chase/shootout in a busy public area.

quaunaut 6y ago
While 20,000 is a hell of a number per year, it's worth noting that we're not 100% sure it's only 40 innocent bystanders- for example, in this case it wouldn't have been deemed as such if the boyfriend hadn't survived. What I'd be interested in, is how many no-knock warrants result in any shooting or casualties whatsoever. If that's still a really low number, this may not be as warranted.
ryandrake 6y ago
> “The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion.” When they happen frequently enough, you’re always in the wake of a tragedy, and this becomes an excuse to perpetually do nothing. It’s like after every US school shooting it’s always “too soon to talk about legislation.”
pmorici 6y ago
The justification in this case and in general isn't about the person being dangerous it's justified under the auspices that they might destroy evidence. It isn't obvious to me that the risk of confusing people about what is going on and causing a situation where they think they need to fight back against home invaders outweighs the 20 seconds of warning a "dangerous" person might get because the cops don't knock.

54351623 6y ago

I appreciate Mr. Paul's sentiment and agree with him. I would like to see him go further though and end the drug war that the US gov has waged against the American people. I think these no-knock warrants and other systemic, organized violence committed by a militarized civilian law enforcement is largely enabled by this war.

runawaybottle 6y ago

This suggestion is going to sound stupid, but what is the current tech and cost of bullet proof riot shields? Could we use technology to re-train and equip officers with shields and non lethal weapons to eliminate the fear of death, and unnecessary fatalities? What would the price be? A few billion?

augustt 6y ago
The premise here is wrong. These guys aren't looking for better ways to deescalate - they're itching to kill. Never forget the UPS shootout last December where 19 cops opened fired, killing the hostage and a bystander, taking cover behind the cars of families.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  It’s more in response to the litany of cases where cops reacted by shooting. It sounds like a ridiculous idea for sure, but where are we exactly with full body armor and bullet proof visors (full body suit is even better than just a frontal bulletproof shield)? If we’re already there with the tech, then we can disarm them of guns and basically remove a scenario where a cop can kill. We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers.
  - icelancer 6y ago
    >> We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers. These are exceptionally unreliable weapons. There's no real way to bulletproof a cop. Armor piercing .223 can go through pretty much any reasonable body armor / shields you would wear into a situation like this and is readily available to fire out of AR-15s and the like.
    - runawaybottle 6y ago
      Thanks, I was probing to see where we were at with the tech. Would it ever be possible?

kenneth 6y ago

I feel like, in general, in most countries around the world, the police are bad people and not trustworthy. I have little respect for the police, and usually abide by a personal policy of avoiding them, and refusing to cooperate whenever possible. In my one run-in with the police in the bay area, after I was mugged at gunpoint and called the police immediately after, they were entirely unreliable and unhelpful. They refused to go after the perpetrators despite having a clear opportunity to at the time. In many countries, the police is corrupt, harassing civilians to extort them into giving bribes. In Indonesia, planting drugs during a stop to extort money out of tourists is a well known scam. A drivers license check is never passed without a bribe (amounting to the entire contents of your wallet). In Hong Kong, where I live now, the police has a history of brutally repressing peaceful protests, including the shooting of unarmed civilians, and the cover-up of multiple rapes and murders perpetrated by policemen. Oftentimes, even when they are not outrightly criminal, the police is there to enforce awful laws that infringe on people's basic human rights. Fuck the police.

alharith 6y ago
The “I had a bad experience therefore we must burn the whole system down” line of reasoning is a sign of immaturity. Police serve a vital role in many communities in the US. For every bad story that catches headlines there are hundreds more good acts that go unnoticed. The US is very different than a brutalist authoritarian regime, even with a wanna-be authoritarian in the White House.
mseidl 6y ago
I live in Germany and in 2015 our police, for the whole year, in the whole country only fired 88 bullets. Germans go through 3 years of training and have a lot of training on non-violent/lethal deescalation. I also used to live in the US, and the cops there are nuts. Jon Oliver did a good video on accountability: https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo
- mschuster91 6y ago
  We Germans aren't perfect either, not a single cop got prosecuted for the police violence at G20, and we routinely get scandals for Nazi cops or a lack of accountability...

ngold 6y ago

Of all the non politics and general news, how does a rand Paul article get through? Besides being a horrible human being, why? Thanksgiving dinners must be so awkward with his dad.

mnm1 6y ago

So I assume Paul will introduce a bill to end this in his next session. Or this is him just blowing hot air and a problem he only wants to pretend to solve. We'll know soon enough. My money is on the latter. You don't get to his level of politics in the US without kissing some major law enforcement asses. And those are some giant asses.

mansion7 6y ago
It does sound like something he might do. He has sponsored, consponsored, and supported bills to fund police body cameras, impose limits on roving surveillance, reduce or eliminate harsh treatment of prisoners, eliminate indefinite detentions, provide for sealing or expulsion of non-violent offenses, amend the controlled substances act, reform asset forfeiture laws,etc.

Corrado 6y ago

I have some experience with the police force and I think the problem may run deeper and be a bit less dramatic, and I think this might be true nationwide. The gist is that benefits and compensation for police officers have been going down in recent years. Lower pay, worse insurance, no retirement; all of these things lead to less, and less qualified, applicants. This drives down the employment requirements and removes the older, more level-headed officers. In the past they required a college degree; now it's just a high school diploma or GED. In the past they provided plenty of training (ie. time on the range; de-escalation procedures, etc.); now you get 12 bullets twice a year for certification. In the past you received a good pension and great insurance; now if you die on the job your family gets nothing. Who in the world would WANT to be a police officer in this situation!? You get little pay, little respect, and you have to run into the problem while everyone else runs away. This is in no way an excuse for what happened in my town (Louisville, KY) but I thought it might shed some light as to why it happened. I don't think cops are bad people and it only takes a few to really drag them all down. They are generally just people trying to go to work and make a living. The vast, vast majority of police officers don't wake up wanting to end someone's life. They just want to make their town a bit safer and stay alive to spend time with their families.

alexashka 6y ago
Sounds just like the school teachers. Bunch of knuckleheads teaching our children and protecting us from criminals, oh and there is no universal health care either. What a great country, this USA.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  With all the lockdown / home-schooling, my (probably misplaced) hope would be that teaching, as a career, is given more respect and the earning capacity that goes with the recognition of how important teaching is to the general functioning of society. Teachers raise our kids for fucks sake. Knuckleheads, and there are plenty, will bring them down, and that affects the whole of society for a long time. Attracting better quality teachers raises all boats. But then Nursing, that also needs more respect for the shit, often literally, they face day in day out. Police, fuck, if you can't trust them to do the right thing, then what's the fucking point in the first place?. Get the right people, and the people right. Paying peanuts gets monkeys, and monkeys throw shit everywhere. I'm overpaid for what I do and it's effect on society. I'm hoping that the pandemic will cause at least somewhat of an adjustment, but my world-wise cynicism leans towards further adjustment in the wrong direction.

fake-name 6y ago

I guess it's that rare time where the stopped clock that is Rand Paul is correct again.

remote_phone 6y ago
Seriously. He may be right on this issue, but fuck him for trying to out the whistleblower. That was a blatant disregard for the law and he should have been thrown in jail. It was disgusting.
- notmarkus 6y ago
  What was disgusting about it?

praptak 6y ago

No-knock is obviously unavoidable at times. But it should only be done by specially trained police units, including the training not to shoot unarmed people. I believe it's done this way in most Western countries.

the_absurdist 6y ago

The credibility bias that flows from local judicial systems to local law enforcement needs systematic measurement, analysis, and mitigation.

Spearchucker 6y ago

In Europe many just shake their heads and say "Only in America." German police (I'm sure many other police forces too) specifically first aim for the leg.

baybal2 6y ago
Fyi, in China, the prime majority of police officers are prohibited from carrying firearms
masonic 6y ago
specifically first aim for the leg Even if that's really a thing there, U.S. case law makes it clear that if an officer has the luxury of just winging a perp, then her life was not in imminent danger and therefore use of deadly force was improper in the first place.