4 ms·

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.