3 ms·
Is there a good constitutional argument against no-knock warrants? Constitution says no unreasonable searches or seizure without a warrant. With no-knock warran
by 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 agoI 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 agoThat’s a feature, not a bug.
- jeffdavis 6y agoThe 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 agoI'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 agoNo-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.