Why aren't "No Knock" search warrants a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

[Uncle Joe]

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8351320

Detroit police shot and killed a seven-year-old girl during an early morning raid of a home on the city’s east side Sunday morning. The child, Aiyana Stanley Jones, was struck in the head and neck area while sleeping on a couch at the home on Lillibridge Street.

In a Sunday morning press conference Assistant Police Chief Ralph Godbee said police were executing a “no-knock” search warrant for a homicide suspect in the two-apartment home. He said the police—members of the heavily armed Special Response Team—threw a flash grenade through an unopened window around 12:45 a.m. before charging in with guns drawn.

Apparently the police were searching the wrong apartment unit.

If they had knocked on the door and taken some additional risk or captured the suspect out side of his home, would the little girl be alive today?

[Echo In Light]

1. .

K/R

[arcane1]

2. They are...

but the "war on drugs" makes them more popular than the Constitution, because God forbid a drug suspect has the time to flush the toilet before answering the door. :grr:

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Actually, this time it was a murder suspect they were after. Don't know

the justification for 'no knock' unless it was just to keep the suspect from grabbing a gun. The fact is, they didn't know who was in the place, or where the occupants were when they went in, and that alone is a good way to get officers shot. If they'd locked down the intel first, it would not have happened.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Re; the intel, apparently there were toys in the yard which should give some strong indication

as to to the occupants.

Kids in the house during the night time, even if a murder suspect were living there, capturing him or her outside of the house would seem far more reasonable to me.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Which brings up the point that if you can get to your stash and flush it all down the toilet

in a matter of seconds, how high up the dealer totem pole can you be?

I believe it's gotten to the point of the nation throwing many babies out with the bath water.

[WinkyDink]

5. Or shooting them.

[truedelphi]

8. Ditto that. the Sanctity of the War on Drugs, which is nothing

More than a legalized way around our rights. Over ninety percent of all drug use is marijuana - but they pretend that we are in the middle of some huge epidemic of the harder stuff.

A researcher tracking this stuff found out that in a ten year period, there had been 400 such kick ins of doors, with resulting loss of life, and/or property. Often the police toss in some kind of percussion grenade, and the entire dwelling will burn to the ground. And many of these were "wrong address" incidents.

And often they have scoped out the individuals they have wanted for a long time. Except for double checking the address. So why not have a "pizza delivery person" show up first? That undercover operative can find out if the dwelling is occupied by decent people, or those who are running some illegal activity.

[Uncle Joe]

13. To me it's amazing that more people; drug user or not don't understand that.

Ditto that. the Sanctity of the War on Drugs, which is nothing

More than a legalized way around our rights.

To be honest I believe more people do understand it than is reported by the corporate media.

I also can't help but wonder if the "War on Drugs" contributed to the development of Meth Labs?

What if instead of criminalizing the American People's instinctive desire for drug use over the past forty plus years, strong, national/state educational, medical and rehabilitation programs had been initiated as a solution, would more people be wiser today?

Would more people be less likely to go to such extremes to alter their consciousness?

I see the so called War on Drugs as a surreptitious form of class and race war fare with it's ultimate target being the Constitution as that document is the American People's preeminent shield against draconian/authoritarian rule, and by eroding the Bill of Rights for some they erode them for all.

[randr]

7. No Knock laws were created for the War on Drugs

Also seizure of property and many more breaches of our constitution. When it came to enforcing draconian laws against drug users no constitutional right was sacred.
Lets hear the teabaggers bitch about that, FAT CHANCE.

[hobbit709]

49. 100% true

[Dappleganger]

9. Militarized police force.

[G_j]

10. Completely unacceptable, as you point out.

but they do it on TV all the time, and people know more about that, than the fourth amendment, unfortunately.
It takes a child getting killed to get a moment's attention. It brings to mind the shooting of the dogs recently. I would guess that was a no- knock.

I hope these incidents wake someone up.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Actually in that case, they did knock and I timed the video from the time of the knock until they

busted the door down was 9 seconds, I believe those people were probably asleep at the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8280701

Speaking of TV, I remember the ending of one episode of "Law & Order" when the main protagonists got in to an elevator and made a comment about the First Amendment; as if it were Gonorrhea.

[NutmegYankee]

24. That was hardly proper however.

9 seconds is not enough time to get dressed and come to the door and they didn't knock very loudly. This was just a show to "meet the letter of the law" but not the intent.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I agree. I even posted a polled thread to that issue and apparently 75% of the respondents said

no or hell no.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8286132

[Rex]

11. Because the government says they are not.

And you should always believe the government has your best interests at heart. Like the "war on drugs", totally for the people - by the people. Series. If law enforcement sucked any worse, we would have to admit our judical system is broke beyond repair and you know how no one likes to admit something isn't working!

[Flaneur]

12. No-knock raids are typically approved by judges...

...when, in affidavits for search warrants, police claim there is a danger of violent resistance or of evidence being destroyed. They are supposed to be okayed for a small class of searches, but as with the use of SWAT teams, there has been considerable mission creep. And the police affidavits typically use boiler plate languge. Judges shouldn't let them get aware with that shit...but they do.

The cops need to be held accountable.

And the judges who sign off on those no-knock warrants need to be held accountable.

Holding either group accountable is a big problem, though.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Speaking of mission creep, I believe no-Knock Warrants by its' very natures

are mission creep against the Bill of Rights protecting the people, there is nothing reasonable about them.

This little girl died as a direct result of this type of warrant, even though the police went to the wrong unit, had they knocked first instead of throwing a flash bang grenade through the window disorienting the residents, she would likely be alive.

That's more akin to war fare than police work.

If they suspect violent resistance, there must be other means to capture those suspects either outside of their homes or go through a traditional knock and search process, the same holds true regarding the issue of evidence disposal.

[truebrit71]

14. The size of that lawsuit should hopefully encourage John Q. Law to at least get the correct...

...fucking address next time...:grr:

There are no words to express how angry and sad this makes me..

[Supply Side Jesus]

15. Because a WARRANT was issued.

Duh.

[tkmorris]

20. Not good enough, sorry

[Supply Side Jesus]

21. The Courts disagree with you, sorry.

[Uncle Joe]

23. The Courts are wrong on this, just as they have been in the past on other issues.

There is nothing reasonable about a no-knock search.

[Supply Side Jesus]

25. Until then, they remain, and rightfully, Constitutional.

The difference between a no-knock and regular warrant is the level of danger.

So when serving a warrant on Mother Theresa is MUCH different than on Pablo Escobar.

[Uncle Joe]

27. So was slavery "rightfully" Constitutional

Note, I didn't ask you if slavery was Constitutional, I asked you if it was "rightfully" Constitutional.

[Supply Side Jesus]

30. what does this have to do with 4th admen?

stick with the current topic. Thank you.

[Uncle Joe]

37. The question in my O.P. was broad and you narrowed it down to a simple the Courts ruled;

therefor it is.

"Why aren't "No Knock" search warrants a violation of the Fourth Amendment?"

My question about the rightness or wrongness about slavery was based on the same premise as your logic.

In that case the courts ruled that slavery was Constitutional, so it's consistent with your argument against my O.P. question.

As to the edited part of your last post, you take two extremes of which the vast majority of people don't fall in to but this No-Knock Warrant can hit anyone's home and if you're caught unaware people or pets can be killed or hurt even if by mistake.

The difference between a no-knock and regular warrant is the level of danger.

So when serving a warrant on Mother Theresa is MUCH different than on Pablo Escobar.

[Supply Side Jesus]

46. you changed the subject

the question was regarding 4th admen, not slavery. Your attempt to somehow get into a constitutional debate from the the mid-1800's is useless regarding the topic at hand. Slavery and no-knocks are not even in the same field of play. You don't like the constitution, then change it.

[Uncle Joe]

48. That's the point of this O.P. just as the early Abolitionists published papers questioning the

morality, or Constitutional rightfulness for allowing slavery.

"You don't like the constitution, then change it."

And again, the O.P. was broad and multifaceted questioning the ramifications of such a policy, but you chose to ignore that.

"Apparently the police were searching the wrong apartment unit.

If they had knocked on the door and taken some additional risk or captured the suspect out side of his home, would the little girl be alive today?"

[jberryhill]

31. Apparently so, since a Constitutional Amendment was needed to end it

If it wasn't Constitutional, then do you agree the 13th Amendment was overkill?

[Uncle Joe]

39. I will repost my note on that post for clarification.

"Note, I didn't ask you if slavery was Constitutional, I asked you if it was "rightfully" Constitutional."

"Rightfully" as in the moral implications.

[jberryhill]

40. No, the Constitution was wrong

I hope you don't take law as some code of morality. It isn't.

The Constitution is really clear on counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.

Now, coming along and asking if that was "rightfully" Constitutional is kind of a silly question. It is expressly written in the Constitution that slaves will count as 3/5 of a person, so you can't say it was someone not correctly Constitutional - because that is what it is said.

The moral argument over slavery ended, and that was embodied in the 13th and other Amendments to the Constitution.

So, the Constitution was wrong and needed to be fixed. Asking if it was "rightfully Constitutional" as if the proper reading of the Constitution is some sort of moral question, as opposed to a legal question, is simply nonsensical.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Look at this way if there was no moral implication regarding slavery, the Constitution would

never have been changed.

Moral imperative lead the push to change what was morally wrong about the Constitution from the abolitionists prior to the Civil War.

The same can be said about giving women the right to vote, if women and men hadn't felt morally wronged by such injustice, would the Suffragists have fought for the Nineteenth Amendment?

The Constitution isn't just an arbitrary piece of paper, it's full of moral; which people have fought and died for over two hundred years.

[jberryhill]

43. Well, there you go...

"Moral imperative lead the push to change what was morally wrong about the Constitution from the abolitionists prior to the Civil War."

You nailed it. The Constitution has been found to be morally wrong several times. So, going back to the question about what is "rightfully constitutional" if you had gone into court prior to women's suffrage and argued that women had a Constitutional right to vote, because it is "rightfully Constitutional", then you would have been laughed out as quickly as you had come in.

"The Constitution isn't just an arbitrary piece of paper, it's full of moral; which people have fought and died for over two hundred years."

But you've just given two examples of where it was morally wrong, and amended. So is it all okay now, or still have problems? Make up your mind.

There's a bunch of people who tell me their morals lead them to believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances. There are people whose morals tell them gays shouldn't be married. There are people who tell me their morals require only Christians to be in government.

It's not about morals. If you want to say it's about MY morals, then fine. Your morals, I'm not so sure about.

[Uncle Joe]

44. I explained in my previous post that rightful and moral were analogous.

What is it about that, you don't understand?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rightful

3.
equitable or just, as actions or a cause.

4.
proper; appropriate; fitting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

[Uncle Joe]

45. In addition take this smack-down of Clarence Thomas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8354435&mesg_id=8354435

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.

In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS argues that today’s holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in (citations omitted). Given that “evolving standards of decency” have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, (Citation omitted), this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does JUSTICE THOMAS’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commit- ment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete, post, at 8–9, and n. 2.

While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old . . ., the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

I don't know about you, but I consider decency a moral consideration and it's being cited by the Supreme Court as part of their deliberations.

So morals do come in to play and they always have, the same holds true with these No-Knock bust ins of the American Peoples' homes, which I believe to be "unreasonable" invasions and by all moral rights violations of the 4th Amendment.

[Flaneur]

36. You don't automatically get a no-knock warrant, or at least, you're not supposed to.

The police are supposed to provide the judge with reasons for asking for a no-knock warrant. Almost any drug raid search warrant affidavit contains ONLY boilerplate language about any threat justifying a no-knock warrant.

The judges who are allowing these need to be held accountable.

[Winterblues]

17. We are at "War"

Remember the Government can do Anything when we are at "War".. Terra is fighting us real hard, and so are drugs. I think terra and drugs might get together and really attack us with all their forces..So if the Guv'mint wants to do unconstitutional things like not knock on our door not much anyone can do about it. I think they should just torture them drugs and make um talk. There just might be some ticking going on..

[Pavulon]

19. There is a glaring fuckup in here somewhere.

Without knowing what weapon was fired it is hard to really make the call 100% however.. Every firearm in modern use can not be fired without a trigger being pulled. SO either the officer pulled it, or someone else did.

If he pulled it there is no accident. An accidental shooting(negligent) involves a failure of one or more of the cooper rule. requires lack of muzzle control, lack of trigger control, and potentially a rule 3 being keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

You can literally smash the glock, M4a1(bitch will dimple a primer though), ma16a4, and Remington 870 into bent parts and they will not fire. These do not fire when dropped.

As for the warrant for a murder suspect will wait and see.

The shooting is highly suspect.

[amborin]

22. not first time something like this has happened....

[Uncle Joe]

28. And with those kind of warrants it damn sure won't be the last.

[amborin]

29. totally agree, Uncle Joe

[X_Digger]

32. For a backgrounder on no-knocks..

.. see the last case before the SCOTUS..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZO.html

[gravity]

33. A no-knock search was reasonable in this case

The warrant was issued in court for a suspected murderer.

The problem was caused by the actions of the police officers, not the warrant.

[NutmegYankee]

35. The tragic part is it was the wrong Apt.

The building was a duplex and they hit the wrong apartment. And as horrible as the death of a 7 year-old is, she may have gotten a merciful death because the flashbang landed right on top of her. The burns and wounds would have been horrific to survive. Sad all around...

[Flaneur]

38. That may be true. How'd that no-knock warrant work out for them?

They got their man--next door, apparently--and killed an innocent kid. Oops.

[Uncle Joe]

41. The warrant killed the girl. Even if the police had went to the wrong house but knocked

instead and given notice, the situation likely would not have escalated to that point.

A murderer can be apprehended out side of their home.

[branders seine]

34. because we live in a proto-police state,

in which 30+ years of right-wing judicial appointments have made the Constitution increasingly irrelevant.

[DefenseLawyer]

47. The militarization of our police forces is to blame.

The hardware, the tactics, it's dangerous and ineffective; even if it does give cops with buzz cuts wood when they lock and load.