Houston Lawmakers Propose Ban on No-Knock Warrants

[03Lightningrocks]

Ban no knock warrants.

Absolutely. The problem comes into play when we decide it is OK to ignore the constitutional rights of people we deem not worthy of having them. Eventually government will decide you are no longer worthy as well.

[srothstein]

No knock warrants are but one of the things, like civil asset forfeiture, that I believe need to be banned. But I'm always willing to listen to reason:
1. Given the situation that we are in with political police forces (an are buddy Art puts Houston in the running) what do you suggest to use to keep enough pressure on departments to keep no-knock warrants under control?
2. What, besides drugs and a non-family associated kidnapping, is a no knock warrant needed for?
3. We agree that the war on drugs has been a dismal failure in its original purpose and one of the worse things in terms of trampling individual rights. I'm not in favor of legalizing even pot but what is going on now is awful. What do you suggest that we do differently.

I fully agree that civil asset forfeiture should be banned. To me, it is a violation of the constitutional requirement that what the government takes has to be paid for at full market value. Actual evidence of a crime can be seized without violating this clause because it is not being taken for public use, but the whole principal of asset forfeiture is that they are taking things worth money to sell and use the money, so it is wrong, IMO. It is also wrong because it is set up to promote abuse by making certain police activities profitable to the department, so administrators with strained budget can emphasize taking things.

On no-knock warrants, there are so many circumstances I can think of which justify it that it is hard to pick just a few to show you. Consider the case of the two bank robbers involved in the Miami shootout of 1986. They had started killing people for sport and not for any reason others can understand. If they had been in a house instead of a car, I think a no-knock warrant would have been fully justified to prevent a gun fight from erupting that would have endangered neighbors. This actually goes to any case where the suspects are likely to start a violent firefight in a densely populated area and endanger lives nearby. Cases where the person may be suicidal and the knock gives him enough time to shoot himself where a no-knock could let the police in in time to save his life. A third reason, though this is most common with drugs, is any case where the evidence could be destroyed in the time it takes to enter. I see no reason to limit it to non-family kidnapping as family kidnappings go wrong much more often than non-family. I did not mention that it could save police officers lives in cases also, but that should be considered too. it is not nearly as important to me as saving other citizens, but it should be considered. I fully agree that all of these have to have some evidence to justify the belief of what would happen, and it must be reviewed and approved by the judge (though I will also be the first to admit that judges have not done such a great job at reviewing these applications already). And a no-knock should require by law that the officers be in regular police uniform. Texas has a legal presumption that the person knows it is an officer if they are in the distinctive uniform of the police department and I support this concept. But the SWAT team wearing BDUs, either in green or camo or black, is not the distinctive uniform of the department. That uniform is what the average patrolman wears on patrol duty so that people see and recognize it.

I believe in the legalization of drugs for multiple reasons, besides the way the enforcement has trampled on people's rights. I do not believe that government has the legal or moral right to protect us from our own dumb decisions, such as using drugs. But if we are going to do it, then the only other way to do it is to keep all instances of drug possession, no matter the size, a felony and put people in jail for it. Strict enforcement of this will cause an overcrowding of the jails at first, but it will also scare enough people way from drugs that it will reduce the problem. I don't like this option, but I am pragmatic enough to realize what it takes to get people to obey the law. Nothing will deter everyone, but this would deter a lot of the people from getting into drugs.

[seph]

No knock warrants should require written sign off starting with the officer requesting one, their supervisor, and all the way up the the chief of police's office. All parties that signs off on it, including thee judge, should have no immunity from civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution if the justification for the no knock cause of the warrant is not found / justified after the execution of the warrant. A warrant for a drug dealer that could be violent and no drugs found, all parties that signed off for the warrant can be sued in civil court, and criminal charges applied to all if any civilians are injured or killed in these cases, including the judge.

There needs to be full accountibility for everyone involved in the approval process of these types of warrants, including possible jail time even for judges that sign off on them. This way, they would only be used when there is NO other way to prevent innocent deaths or injury. Kind of like a use in absolute last resorts situations.

[Excaliber]

[quote=srothstein post_id=1299734 time=1607231728 user_id=13

I believe in the legalization of drugs for multiple reasons, besides the way the enforcement has trampled on people's rights. I do not believe that government has the legal or moral right to protect us from our own dumb decisions, such as using drugs. But if we are going to do it, then the only other way to do it is to keep all instances of drug possession, no matter the size, a felony and put people in jail for it. Strict enforcement of this will cause an overcrowding of the jails at first, but it will also scare enough people way from drugs that it will reduce the problem. I don't like this option, but I am pragmatic enough to realize what it takes to get people to obey the law. Nothing will deter everyone, but this would deter a lot of the people from getting into drugs.
[/quote]

Unfortunately the history of escalating the penalties for drug offenses strongly suggest that the major effects of making every offense a felony would be simply to raise the price and increase the likelihood of the use of violence to escape arrest.

We can't punish our way out of this problem. I think our best course would be to place the onus on individual responsibility and let folks decide for themselves what kind of a life they want to have.

[WildBill]

Unfortunately the history of escalating the penalties for drug offenses strongly suggest that the major effects of making every offense a felony would be simply to raise the price and increase the likelihood of the use of violence to escape arrest.

We can't punish our way out of this problem. I think our best course would be to place the onus on individual responsibility and let folks decide for themselves what kind of a life they want to have.

[SewTexas]

on one hand I do understand that no-knocks are sort of useful tools for law enforcement at times, even if I really, really don't like them.

on the other hand, people have been killed, including police officers, because of no-knocks. And, NO, I'm not talking about HER, or that case.

IF, and I'm saying IF, no-knocks are to be kept around, there needs to be some serious changes about how they are handled. There needs to be absolutely no way an address can be misinterpreted. Can't write N for north or E for East, it needs to be written out. And if there are two of a certain street name or similar name, it needs to be very clear which street....OH>>> here we goooo....there needs to be a MAP associated with every warrant request! yes! There also needs to be proof that whomever they are looking for actually lives at said address currently, not 6 years ago or even 6 months ago, but rather 6 hours ago.
and some serious accountability....so that if it does go sideways, it's not able to be swept under the rug. Everyone, from the department head who signs off on the request, to the judge who signs it....and anyone in between. No, I'm not really including the officer or detective, because while he may or may not know better, it's not always his job, it is however, his bosses job, and those are the ones who need to start being held accountable, I'm tired of the lower levels being fired and no upper management being dealt with.

(just some brainstorming)

[The Annoyed Man]

on one hand I do understand that no-knocks are sort of useful tools for law enforcement at times, even if I really, really don't like them.

on the other hand, people have been killed, including police officers, because of no-knocks. And, NO, I'm not talking about HER, or that case.

IF, and I'm saying IF, no-knocks are to be kept around, there needs to be some serious changes about how they are handled. There needs to be absolutely no way an address can be misinterpreted. Can't write N for north or E for East, it needs to be written out. And if there are two of a certain street name or similar name, it needs to be very clear which street....OH>>> here we goooo....there needs to be a MAP associated with every warrant request! yes! There also needs to be proof that whomever they are looking for actually lives at said address currently, not 6 years ago or even 6 months ago, but rather 6 hours ago.
and some serious accountability....so that if it does go sideways, it's not able to be swept under the rug. Everyone, from the department head who signs off on the request, to the judge who signs it....and anyone in between. No, I'm not really including the officer or detective, because while he may or may not know better, it's not always his job, it is however, his bosses job, and those are the ones who need to start being held accountable, I'm tired of the lower levels being fired and no upper management being dealt with.

(just some brainstorming)

Keep no-knock warrants legal, but remove ANY of the protections of qualified immunity whenever one is served.

If police shoot and kill an innocent homeowner at a wrong address during service of a no-knock warrant, accountability for Murder One needs to go all the way up the chain of command, from the officer(s) who shot him, to their supervisors, and to the judge who signed the warrant. If an innocent homeowner shoots and kills a cop in self defense during the service of a no-knock warrant at a wrong address, accountability for a murder One needs to go all the way up the chain of command, from the surviving officers, to their supervisors, and to the judge who signed the warrant.

My rationale: if an accomplice is shot dead during the commission of a burglary—whether by the homeowner, or by another accomplice—or if the homeowner himself is shot dead by one of the accomplices, the resultant murder charges are pinned onto all the surviving accomplices.....not just onto the shooter.

The threat of hard time for Murder One, without any of the protections of qualified immunity, is the ONLY way that judges and officers will be (A) hesitant to use the tactics unless absolutely necessary; and will (B) exercise extreme due diligence to ensure that when they do serve one, it happens without fail at the correct address.

If law enforcement is unwilling to accept these kinds of restrictions and accountability for its use, then no-knock warrants should be banned. Period. They are not our masters. We are not their slaves. They work for us, and they need to never lose sight of that.

[srothstein]

Keep no-knock warrants legal, but remove ANY of the protections of qualified immunity whenever one is served.

TAM, I agree that qualified immunity is something that needs to be reformed, and most of it should be done away with. But, like in almost all things, we cannot do away with it completely as it is a valuable process. It would certainly help if we had some laws explaining qualified immunity and when it applies and when it doesn't. This is a policy that was created by the courts and therefore is less clear than any law (most of which are too vague to begin with).

The policy of qualified immunity was created to allow police officers and other government officials to work in the gray areas of the law and not get punished for a reasonable error in judgement. For example, the 4th Amendment says only unreasonable searches are forbidden, so officers had to judge what is unreasonable in the eyes of the law. They still need to do this and have this ability. But, the current court policy of immunity anytime unless it was an already decided fact that should be well known that something was wrong has resulted in crazy decisions that make no sense. The one most recently that bothered me was when the cops stole from the seized evidence but not the part taken on the warrant. How do you not know that A: stealing is wrong, and B: taking evidence more than what the warrant authorized is wrong? But since there were no court cases saying this, the court let them go.

Since I am not sure we could write a law explaining it clearly enough to cover the gray areas, I would be willing to say qualified immunity only exists when the law is clear that the person was doing something legal. That is almost as bad as saying only when it is not clearly illegal, but has a lot less potential for abuse. It does allow an officer to do his job and protects him from false claims. And just because there is no automatic defense of qualified immunity, it does not mean the officer in the gray area would be found liable. But I don't see a problem with qualified immunity if the officer shoots a man attacking him with a knife (another recent case where the public wants to remove qualified immunity) since the law already clearly makes this legal self-defense.

[WildBill]

One of my issues is a proper definition and procedure for executing a No-Knock warrant.
From some of the accounts I have read the breach of a door or firing into a building
can occur within seconds or simultaneously with the "knock" and identifying themselves.

This method surprises the occupants of the house, often times waking them up. Hearing
loud noises and pounding on the door is sure to get the adrenaline pumping and triggers
a flight or fight response. Since there is usually no way to escape, the only options are
to do nothing or to fight. When a person fears for their life, many will fight with deadly
force.

I don't know the answer, but this type of warrant, if used at all, should be used in very
rare situations. Certainly not for minor crimes such as possessing or selling a gram of
drugs. The problem with the false affidavits used for obtaining warrants, non-existent or
unreliable informants and the planting of evidence is a whole different matter.

[Grayling813]

Keep no-knock warrants legal, but remove ANY of the protections of qualified immunity whenever one is served.

If police shoot and kill an innocent homeowner at a wrong address during service of a no-knock warrant, accountability for Murder One needs to go all the way up the chain of command, from the officer(s) who shot him, to their supervisors, and to the judge who signed the warrant. If an innocent homeowner shoots and kills a cop in self defense during the service of a no-knock warrant at a wrong address, accountability for a murder One needs to go all the way up the chain of command, from the surviving officers, to their supervisors, and to the judge who signed the warrant.

My rationale: if an accomplice is shot dead during the commission of a burglary—whether by the homeowner, or by another accomplice—or if the homeowner himself is shot dead by one of the accomplices, the resultant murder charges are pinned onto all the surviving accomplices.....not just onto the shooter.

The threat of hard time for Murder One, without any of the protections of qualified immunity, is the ONLY way that judges and officers will be (A) hesitant to use the tactics unless absolutely necessary; and will (B) exercise extreme due diligence to ensure that when they do serve one, it happens without fail at the correct address.

If law enforcement is unwilling to accept these kinds of restrictions and accountability for its use, then no-knock warrants should be banned. Period. They are not our masters. We are not their slaves. They work for us, and they need to never lose sight of that.

Government agents once armed with almost unlimited power to kill citizens will argue and fight to keep their immunity from prosecution. And of course they're always "just following orders from higher up."

[Soccerdad1995]

I am in favor of a complete ban on no knock warrants. Note that this does not prevent police from entering without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that an actual crime is currently taking place. There are costs either way.

I also support stopping the war on drugs. Every time we take drugs off the street we increase the price and the profit motive for those engaged in that business. If the goal is to minimize harm to society caused by certain drugs, then the current "war on drugs" is not conducive to that goal. This is related because one justification for no knock warrants is the very real possibility that drug evidence might be destroyed.

If we are going to allow no knock warrants in any capacity, then we also need to acknowledge the very real right of an innocent home owner to defend their home from an intruder they reasonably believe may not be LEO. Screaming "police" does not negate that reasonable belief, IMHO. And everyone involved in an attack on an innocent citizens home (whether supported by a no knock warrant or otherwise) needs to be held personally, criminally liable for the results of that mistake. That means charges of 1st degree murder is anyone if killed, etc. Heck, just passing this part will naturally eliminate almost all desire for no knock warrants.

[SewTexas]

there are several bills already filed addressing no-knock warrants, a couple look like they ban them completely, and several others look like they overhaul or modify them. But they do look like they address them on a state level, which I find interesting, since I'm pretty should that right now they are dealt with on a city level. I have not even looked at these bills in my legislative pursuits, yet. I will be surprised if something doesn't happen.