3 ms·
The constitution doesn't specifically address no-knock warrants, other than by incorporating practice at the time of the founding. Therefore, there are no consi
by 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 agoThat'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.