TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:I wouldn't blame the LE community for no-knock warrants. They have to request permission from a judge. It takes a magistrate who has the fancy law degrees to sign off.

Pre-Dawn No-Knock SWAT Raid for Minor Drug Charge Ruled Unconstitutional
2015 militarized raid resulted in "fifth-degree drug possession." That's the lowest drug charge possible.

A Hennepin County (Minn.) drug squad — known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU) — conducted a pre-dawn no-knock raid on a house in North Minneapolis one morning in November 2015. They were looking for Walter Power, who they suspected of being a marijuana dealer. To search the home they believed Power to be sleeping in, they brought a force of between 28-32 officers, most clad in riot gear and carrying rifles, accompanied by a sniper seated atop a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response (BEAR) vehicle.

Why did law enforcement officials feel they needed to display a show of overwhelming force that would be intense even in a foreign occupied city? Because the primary resident of the house, Michael Delgado, was a registered gun-owner with a license to carry.

Convinced of the potential danger posed to officers when raiding a house with an armed occupant, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford signed off on the no-knock raid, but later told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that she did not know a platoon of up to 32 officers would be deployed to search the house, or that they'd throw flash bang grenades through the windows in addition to knocking down doors.

TEX wrote:No Knock Warrants are a sign of laziness, lackadaisical judgment, and sans professionalism. The problem is that judges hand them out like trick or treat candy. This mindset is also why innocent women and children burned to death at Waco when it was TOTALLY unnecessary. I am a very conservative person, but think no knock warrants need to go away - along with asset forfeiture laws (unless preceded by a criminal conviction)

nightmare69 wrote:
I'm also a reserve deputy and been with SOs most of my LE career.

JALLEN wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/juro ... d-35720642

Ex Deputy found not guilty of lying to a judge to get a no knock warrant. This was a federal trial, the local DA decided her work was sloppy but did not rise to the level of a crime.

Other articles I saw have titles like County refuses to pay medical bills of injured infant.

The child has received an almost one million dollar settlement from one county in this multi county raid.

Child still needs more surgery.

Another casualty in the war on drugs.

Not exactly. The state court grand jury no-billed, not the same as a "local DA deciding..."

I have learned during 40 years as a lawyer that it is virtually impossible to arrive at firm accurate conclusions about the outcome of a trial unless you were in the courtroom to observe the evidence, the witnesses, the arguments, etc.

Everyone of a certain age is familiar with the OJ Simpson murder trial, and most have an opinion about the outcome, since almost the entire proceeding was televised for all to see. It's a good example of the burden of the state to prove its case by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Unhappily, the prosecutors did such a poor job of it, and the defense was able to exploit those lapses, that the jury was fully justified in not believing some of the evidence, and Simpson was acquitted.

EEllis wrote:

tomneal wrote:

Javier730 wrote:
No knock warrants should only be used when police know for sure there is a fugitive in the home they are going in, in my opinion.

Tom's Good Reasons for No Knock Warrants
- Active Kidnapping (Real Kidnappings, not custody disputes between parents.)
- Weapons of Mass Destruction

I'd like to see State and Federal legislatures change laws to limit No Knock Warrants.
Apparently the courts are ok issuing no knock swat warrants for trivial crimes.

Honestly if you will check the criteria for such warrants very greatly from state to state and some jurisdictions prohibit no knock warrants all together. In Georgia the police are required to have Probable Cause, a higher standard than required for a normal search warrant, of a suspects threat to public safety to get a no knock warrant issued. I do think there is also some drug exemption there also. This was an active drug sale location with a suspect that had a history of violence and previous weapons charges and worked in conjunction with several other people to supply drugs. So this does not automatically make what happened here ok but lets also not trivialize the crimes and situation to make a point.

EEllis wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:What I don't get is why, in the name of all that is holy, if firearms and drugs are known to be present and are such a threat to officers lives that they have to engage in combat tactics with potential children in the home, don't they wait for the guy to be leaving 7-11 and take him there then get a warrant for the house and show up and get the evidence no drama needed.


If I can think of that, why can't they?

Like I have said before we all think we are so sofistcated in our police and criminal justice system, but in much more brutal times those who enforced the law were severely punished if they burned innocents along with the guilty.

Because there are never any kids at 7-11? You might be right that it is a better choice to try and apprehend someone outside a home but you have more variables that could occur outside than in a home. Assuming that it would provide better results without having access to more data is wishful thinking. What is really needed is real research into the issue and fact based decision making.