No knock warrants violate SECOND amendment

[A-R]

After reading some discussion here (viewtopic.php?f=108&t=70670&hilit=Burleson&start=30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) about "no knock" warrants, this article caught my eye ...

From the Rutherford Institute:
WASHINGTON, DC — Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/does-th ... z2p4n2xMf4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[WildBill]

The term "no knock warrant" is misleading.

IMO, if the time between the knock and entry by the police doesn't give the person time to respond and open the door, then it's merely semantics.

[cb1000rider]

I don't get it.

Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs.

I know of specific circumstances in Texas where courts issue warrants for residential searches for weapons. They get to look for weapons. If they find drug indicators (not drugs) - then they get to go back to court for a warrant allowing them to search (perhaps more invasive) for drugs.

Do search warrants authorize entry type, IE no-knock? I'd assume that would be a departmental policy.
Wouldn't no-knock be authorized based on drugs alone, which could get flushed or destroyed?

[EEllis]

Do search warrants authorize entry type, IE no-knock? I'd assume that would be a departmental policy.
Wouldn't no-knock be authorized based on drugs alone, which could get flushed or destroyed?

Generally on warrants there is a KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE RULE that law enforcement must abide by. You have to knock and announce your identity and that you are executing a search warrant. Then, you wait a reasonable amount of time to allow an occupant to open the door. Only after waiting may the police force entry. You don't need a special warrant for a no knock entry but the legality is based on your reason for doing so and many cops and departments will get "pre approval" for a no knock entry rather than try and justify it latter in court. There was a SCOTUS case in 97 Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 358 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that states may not allow a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce rule for all searches in felony drug cases.

[cb1000rider]

Thanks.

[EEllis]

And I don't see where anyone is saying no knock entries, because that is what happened they didn't have a no knock warrant, violates the 2nd. Just that this one entry that there was no knock solely because of the presence legally owned guns would be unconstitutional. Also it wouldn't necessarily be a violation of the 2nd. Rather you can't use exercise of one constitutionally protected freedom, let use religion (muslim perhaps), to justify a violation of the 4th. It would still be a violation of the 4th not the 1st.

[Dragonfighter]

Withdrawn after coffee and the following post. My bad.

[EEllis]

Rather you can't use exercise of one constitutionally protected freedom, let use religion (muslim perhaps), to justify a violation of the 4th. It would still be a violation of the 4th not the 1st.

[jimlongley]

Rather you can't use exercise of one constitutionally protected freedom, let use religion (muslim perhaps), to justify a violation of the 4th. It would still be a violation of the 4th not the 1st.

So, in other words, they can't use the legal possession of firearms by the homeowner (not the subject of the raid or warrant) to justify not knocking.

So far it seems that the courts disagree, let's hope this goes to SCOTUS and that they render a truly "common sense" decision.

[WildBill]

In practice, over the past decade, police officers have increasingly relied on no-knock warrants, particularly in drug cases and especially in major cities. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of innocent persons accidentally injured or killed by police officers executing no-knock warrants.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmra]

In practice, over the past decade, police officers have increasingly relied on no-knock warrants, particularly in drug cases and especially in major cities. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of innocent persons accidentally injured or killed by police officers executing no-knock warrants.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder what the consequences were for those involved in these "accidental" injuries and deaths?

[VMI77]

In practice, over the past decade, police officers have increasingly relied on no-knock warrants, particularly in drug cases and especially in major cities. There has been a corresponding increase in the number of innocent persons accidentally injured or killed by police officers executing no-knock warrants.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder what the consequences were for those involved in these "accidental" injuries and deaths?

The cynic in me says medals and/or promotions.

[GlockDude26]

what about the fourth too?

[HankB]

It always puzzles me why actual bad guys (fences, druggies, etc.) don't have really, really strong doors.

Many years ago I saw news video of a raid police in Chicago made on such a place - sledgehammers barely scuffed the door, and there was an extended conversation through a small window with one of the occupants who - loudly and repeatedly - demanded to SEE the warrant; he flatly refused to open up until the cops a) found the warrant; b) held it up to the window so he could read it.

Whereupon he finally let the cops in.

The ordinary-looking door turned out to have been reinforced by 2x10s or something of the sort on the inside - it was several inches thick - with a couple of 2x4s as crossbars, sort of like you see on castles. Why? "There are a lot of break-ins in this neighborhood, and you guys are never around."

No drugs were found . . .

[WildBill]

It always puzzles me why actual bad guys (fences, druggies, etc.) don't have really, really strong doors.

I think that most of them are renters and don't spend their "extra" money on home improvements from the Home Depot.