(BLM fodder provided unnecessarly by a No Knock Warrent.)
Editor Note:
I think no knock warrents are justified in some cases.
Every now and then I hear a story about the police going into somebody's home looking for a suspect, shooting someone.
Sometimes they are in the wrong address.
Sometimes they don't find the person during the no knock warrant bust in.
Breonna Taylor it seems was shot because her boyfriend shot at the police thinking they were intruders and defended himself.
Her boyfriend also said they did not identify themselves as police before they busted in the house.
Thats because under the law that's a maybe.
If this is true and he did not know the police were busting into the house I can understand why he shot a weapon.
The story doesn't say if it was daylight or night time.
That would make a difference also.
It could also be that the police did identity themselves but the boyfriend did not hear the police.
The law says oh it just to bad if ya didn't hear the warning. (This needs to be changed.)
It could be the boyfriend did hear the police but shot a weapon anyway.
Maybe he thought he was in danger an it was just somebody busting in and yelling police etc.
May be he knew it was the police and shot anyway? (We don't know.)
Did Breonna Taylor have a weapon in her hands?
The story doesn't say.
Why did the police shoot her and not the boyfriend that was shooting at them?
Who told the police their were drugs at the Breonna Taylor house?
Did the police get solid good information before doing the no knock bust into the house?
Did Breonna Taylor have a drug record? I think not.
The story says the cops didn't find any drugs. They didn't find the person they had the no knock warrent for.
I do think no knock warrents are justified in some cases.
The big problem is when its not justified because of bad intel and the police bust into a home, shoot or kill someone who is not the person they were looking for.
If the police came to my house I would know its the police most likely, unless they busted in without saying anything so quickly I just would be in stunned state or possibly grabbing for my weapon if I did not know it was the police.
Under the current law the police don't have to identity if they think they are in danger.
What about me. A law abiding citizen with no criminal record at my home and suddenly the police bust in. Guess what! I am in danger for NO REASON!
Possibly because the police did not do their homework and had the wrong address or wrong person etc.
Mistakes can happen and do happen.
What could be avoided more is police busting into homes etc where they have made mistakes on the warrents thinking they had the correct address or correct intel etc.
I like anybody else would grab a weapon and defend myself if I did not know it was the police or IF I did NOT hear the police say anything.
There are a lot of if's here.
I HAVE JUST AS MUCH OF A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUION TO DEFEND MYSELF IN MY HOME AS THE POLICE DO DEFENDING THEMSELVES ON THE STREET!
2020-07-10-01
The Supreme Court of South Carolina
RE: Issuance of No-knock Search Warrants1 by Circuit and Summary Court Judges
ORDER
Magistrates issue the majority of search warrants in South Carolina. A recent survey of magistrates revealed that most do not understand the gravity of no-knock warrants and do not discern the heightened requirements for issuing a no-knock warrant. It further appears that no-knock search warrants are routinely issued upon request without further inquiry. In recognition of the dangers that the execution of no-knock warrants present to law enforcement and members of the public, and in order to ensure that these warrants are issued based upon the proper constitutional and statutory criteria,
I FIND it necessary to address the issuance of no-knock search warrants by circuit and summary court judges statewide.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,
IT IS ORDERED that a moratorium upon the issuance of no-knock warrants by all circuit and summary court judges of this state take effect immediately and remain in effect until instruction is provided to circuit and summary court judges statewide as to the criteria to be used to determine whether a requested no-knock warrant should be issued. This instruction will be provided by the South Carolina Judicial Branch.
The provisions of this order are effective immediately and remain in effect unless amended or revoked by subsequent order of the Chief Justice.
1 A "no-knock" warrant is one that, regardless of whether it contains the precise phrase "no-knock," allows government officials to enter a dwelling or other building without complying with the traditional requirement of the federal Fourth Amendment that officials "knock and announce" their presence prior to entering. See e.g., Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
WILSON v. ARKANSAS
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 94-5707. Argued March 28, 1995-Decided May 22,1995Petitioner was convicted on state-law drug charges after the Arkansas trial court denied her evidence-suppression motion, in which she asserted that the search of her home was invalid because, inter alia, the police had violated the common-law principle requiring them to announce their presence and authority before entering. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioner's argument that the common-law "knock and announce" principle is required by the Fourth Amendment.
Held: The common-law knock and announce principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry. pp. 931-937.
(a) An officer's unannounced entry into a home might, in some circumstances, be unreasonable under the Amendment. In evaluating the scope of the constitutional right to be secure in one's house, this Court has looked to the traditional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures afforded by the common law at the time of the framing. Given the longstanding common-law endorsement of the practice of announcement, and the wealth of founding-era commentaries, constitutional provisions, statutes, and cases espousing or supporting the knock and announce principle, this Court has little doubt that the Amendment's Framers thought that whether officers announced their presence and authority before entering a dwelling was among the factors to be considered in assessing a search's reasonableness.
Nevertheless, the common-law principle was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances. Countervailing law enforcement interests-including, e. g., the threat of physical harm to police, the fact that an officer is pursuing a recently escaped arrestee, and the existence of reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given-may establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry. For now, this Court leaves to the lower courts the task of determining such relevant countervailing factors. Pp. 934-936.
(b) Respondent's asserted reasons for affirming the judgment below-that the police reasonably believed that a prior announcement would have placed them in peril and would have produced an unreasonable risk that petitioner would destroy easily disposable narcotics evidence-may well provide the necessary justification for the unannounced entry in this case. The case is remanded to allow the state courts to make the reasonableness determination in the first instance. P.937.
Warrants and the Knock-Notice Rule
Police officers have to knock and announce themselves, then wait before forcefully entering a home. At least in theory.
The “knock-notice” or “knock-and-announce” rule derives from the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, even if officers have a search or arrest warrant that justifies entering a home, they must announce themselves and their purpose before intruding.
The Fourth Amendment requires this notice, as do many state laws. Only after the officers have been refused entry or waited a sufficient amount of time without receiving a response can they enter a home without permission, either with or without force.
But, as with practically all legal rules, there are exceptions.
Police officers must usually announce themselves and either explicitly or implicitly request entrance into a home. (An implicit request might take the form of, “Police—we’re here to execute a search warrant!”) But courts aren’t sticklers when it comes to what officers must communicate.
As long as officers take reasonable measures to broadcast their presence, judges are likely to find that they satisfied the notice requirement.
That’s true even if those inside the home didn’t hear and were otherwise unaware of the officers’ request for admittance.
For example, a federal court in Ohio found that, even though the only resident who was present in the home didn’t hear officers knock and declare themselves, those officers properly entered. (United States v. Thompson, 667 F. Supp. 2d 758 (S.D. Ohio 2009).)
Now, Just Wait a Minute
In most instances, officers can’t legally knock on a front door and yell, “Police—open up!” while simultaneously battering their way through it. They have to wait. How long, you ask? As with almost all legal questions, the answer depends. In fact, if the circumstances are pressing enough, they might not have to wait at all.Courts generally require that law enforcement wait a “reasonable” period of time between knock-announcement and barging into a home. But what’s reasonable to one officer or judge might be unreasonable to another. Further complicating the issue is the U.S. Supreme Court’s watering down of the requirement.
In Hudson v. Michigan, the Court observed that officers need not knock and announce if there is a threat of violence or reason to believe providing notice will inspire occupants to destroy evidence. (547 U.S. 586 (2006).) The Court commented that the showing that officers must make to justify ignoring the knock-and-announce rule “is not high.” The result is a general perception that courts rubberstamp forcible residential entry by law enforcement.
That perception isn’t baseless, but courts actually do, from time to time, find that officers have unjustifiably violated the knock-notice rule.
For example, in a 2010 opinion, an Indiana appellate court determined that the circumstances weren’t sufficiently “exigent” for the police to have impatiently barged their way into a residence to execute a search warrant. (Lacey v. State, 931 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).) The prosecution argued that the criminal records of the occupants justified the officers ramming open the front door and declaring themselves only as they were entering.
The court disagreed, and therefore found it appropriate to suppress the evidence the officers found after busting into the home.
State laws and constitutions can provide more personal liberty and privacy protection than their federal counterparts.
The result is some state courts finding that judges must suppress evidence after an illegal unauthorized entry. That was the ruling in the above Indiana case. It’s also what an Alaska appellate court found when certain officers had “seriously” violated the knock-and-announce rule. (Berumen v. State, 182 P.3d 635, 636 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008).) In that case, police officers knocked on the door of the defendant’s hotel room for 20 or more seconds without announcing their identity. They then used a hotel key to open the door and enter. They identified themselves as police officers as they were entering, but didn’t disclose their purpose, which was to serve an arrest warrant.
The appeals court ruled that the drugs the officers subsequently found were inadmissible in court.
Bonus Editor Note:
South Carolina Supreme Court 7/10/2020
"A recent survey of magistrates revealed that most do not understand the gravity of no-knock warrants and do not discern the heightened requirements for issuing a no-knock warrant. It further appears that no-knock search warrants are routinely issued upon request without further inquiry."
" IT IS ORDERED that a moratorium upon the issuance of no-knock warrants by all circuit and summary court judges of this state take effect immediately and remain in effect until instruction is provided to circuit and summary court judges statewide as to the criteria to be used to determine whether a requested no-knock warrant should be issued. This instruction will be provided by the South Carolina Judicial Branch."
_____________________
I don't know what other states do when a no knock search warrent is issued, but it seems the Supreme Court Of SC did the right thing this time and it also seems it should have done it much sooner.
It is beyond stupid to think that a majority of magistrates in SC do no understand the gravity of no knock warrants.
The fact that in SC no knock warrents were routinely issued upon request without further inquiry
puts law abiding citizens at risk from the police busting in their home by accident.
It seems in certain cases the police don't even have to announce who they are before busting in a home etc.
I can tell you if the police busted into my house at night without announcing who they were I would grab my weapon and possibly try to use it depending on what happened next.
What happend next could be I was shot dead or wounded trying to defend myself thinking my home was being invaded by thugs.
Also if I was asleep an suddenly "woke" I would be more prone to default to using my weapon and ask questions later if I survived.
These are more if's.
I think the police should verify the need for a no knock warrant and make sure SC magistrates understand the no knock warrant could be a death sentence for an innocent law abiding citizen.
This is similar to a police car traveling too fast trying to catch someone driving a vehicle to fast and they crash into an innocent victim.
When it comes to inforcing the law the police should not chase a car at 100 mph down the highway running blue lights etc to catch a criminal.
I'm not saying to not pursue the criminal. I am saying just don't kill me in the process 'accidently".
When it comes to busting into homes without notice or announcement etc I also think police should not do that also unless they are very sure that they are at the correct house and are very sure the person they are looking for is in that house.
Don't injure or kill me "accidently" while trying to find a criminal that is not in my home.
The "black lives matter" radical group uses isolated incidents in the news to promote their agenda which is not black lives but destroying America.
It would seem to me that during this jacked up time of mass media blm attention the police would see the need to make darn sure what they are doing before the bust into a house etc with a no knock order.
If they don't they are just feeding the out of control wild fire also known as "black lives matter", which is not the agenda of BLM.
There are a few things the law enforcement need to review and the SC Supreme Court made a good move to force them and the lower courts and SC magistrates to do.
At least in SC in the future before a no knock warrant is issued, I hope it will not be issued to bust into someone's home and find they busted into the wrong address or it was a mistake because of bad intel etc.
I support law enforcement.
I don't support everything the do as you can read.
Law enforcement is not perfect and never will be. It can be made better.
"Black lives matter" can't make law enforcement better by telling us to kill police or burning police buildings or defund police etc etc.
The group called blm is on the streets busting into bussinesses and homes etc.
To the group that is called "black lives matter" black lives mean nothing.
Any life to blm means nothing, only their stated agenda matters, which is the overthrow of the government though violent protests and destroying of personal property.
I know with night vision equipment and ways to listen into who and what is going on in a home, aprt, mtel etc the police could and should know who and what people are doing before the bust down a door.
If police just bust down a door with no announcement or no timely intel such as what I stated above I can see how they could be busting into a place where they should NOT BE.
It is very hard for me to understand how the police could bust into the wrong house etc if they were doing things the right way.
It is easly for me to understand how the police could bust into a house by mistake if they were doing things the wrong way.
To me an excuse would only be justified by the police if they been careful to identify who was in the house etc, made sure they were there, identified where the person was in the house, other people in the house, made sure they were at the correct address and most of all if possible announce who they are to protect innocent homeowners from mistaking their identity.
Police are suppose to protect the innocent. That would include protecting innocent homeowners who have not broken the law.
I don't want a cop pursuing some one at 100 mph plowing through my front door because they got a no knock warrant by mistake thinking they had the correct address!
Police have a responsibility just like citizens do to protect lives.
I have a responsibility to protect my own life and if possible the life of a policeman.
On the street I can identity a policeman by his or her uniform etc.
If I as a concealed weapons permit owner saw the need to help protect a policeman, I would.
A policeman, cop undercover agent etc have a greater responsibility to protect an innocent homeowner from possibly being shot or killed by mistake.
Under the castle law I have the right to defend myself against a threat of bodily harm if I perceive it in my home by an intruder.
If the intruder does NOT announce themselves as police or I do not hear the announcement they made I don't feel like it was a mistake to defend myself.
I don't care what the courts have ruled about police being justified about busting into a home etc with no announcement.
If they bust into my home and they don't identity themselves as police or I can't identity them as police and I defend myself, don't tell me I have done something wrong.
It would not be me that was at fault but the police in my opinion.
This is why I have said the police should be very, very sure they are fully justified before busting into a home etc!
When police are very sure they are busting down a door of a criminal after checking out the justification for the no knock court order and checking everything twice, without "jumping the gun" and just going gung hoe without being sure about what they are doing, this would be something I do support.
I sincerely hope for the police sake and mine they never bust into my house or yours without fully doing their homework first.
BadgeWise.net
The police must also follow the law. I support them because they do most of the time.
They like all of us do make mistakes. Its the mistakes that can kill us.
