TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Creates a pretty precarious situation for the mere citizen when the highly trained paramilitary assault cops show up at the wrong address.

I agree with you. A no knock warrant at the wrong address is pretty much a no-win, nightmare scenario for an Armed Citizen, law-abiding, homeowner.

Play stupid games.
Win stupid prizes.

nightmare69 wrote:Once the police cross a threshold they identify themselves. For many deptments this applies to every room of the house.

this is incorrect, I have seen a few dynamic entry's and all that was yelled was get on the(explicative) floor. I was there to patch up the guilty parties all civilian be it supposed criminal or LEO

philip964 wrote:http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/kpd-offic ... b2370.html

More links. Charged with attempted Capital Murder.

http://kdhnews.com/news/crime/killeen-p ... b2370.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clearly the shooter was no angel.

No drugs were found.

Lots of comments about how no knock warrants are dangerous for officers.

So if you shoot at someone coming through the window of your house in the middle of the night and he ends up being a police officer with a no knock warrant and you are not killed in the gun fight, you are arrested and charged with attempted capital murder.

of course, some people are more equal than others

Jumping Frog wrote:One officer I know at relatively small town (population 25,000) had a clever scenario. On one search warrant, he had the utilities department call and tell perpetrator he was $15 past due on a water bill and needed to pay it in person that day or his water would be turned off. He left, was detained at the office, and the police executed the search warrant while he was being interviewed.

I very much favor a little creativity like this over violent dynamic entries for the reasons cited by Charles in this thread. It's not hard to come up with a way to separate the suspect from the premises and go after what you need to recover with low risk to both officers and occupants.

Excaliber wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:One officer I know at relatively small town (population 25,000) had a clever scenario. On one search warrant, he had the utilities department call and tell perpetrator he was $15 past due on a water bill and needed to pay it in person that day or his water would be turned off. He left, was detained at the office, and the police executed the search warrant while he was being interviewed.

I very much favor a little creativity like this over violent dynamic entries for the reasons cited by Charles in this thread. It's not hard to come up with a way to separate the suspect from the premises and go after what you need to recover with low risk to both officers and occupants.

creativity..... I'm not sure that's taught anymore in government schools.

george wrote:Someone help here, please.

I was talking to a fed, and he told me that most of what are referred to as "no knock" warrants weren't truly "no knock" warrants, but a warrant where they have to knock, and give a few seconds for response, and then enter. The difference seemed trivial to me, but seemed to be significant to him.

He said it was difficult to get a true "no knock", but simple to get the other type.

Enlightenment, please.

There are only two types of warrants issued, regular warrants and no-knock warrants. In general, a warrant requires that the police identify themselves when serving the warrant. To most people, this means they knock and wait for an answer, knock again, and if no answer they can force their way in. This would be just like you checking if someone was home to talk to them, but being able to enter if they were not.

Many times, police officers do this in a very abbreviated method. They knock but knock a little softer than normal. They may even say that they are police, but it is definitely not yelled out. Then they force their way in using very dynamic methods. This allows the police to testify in court that they knocked and announced their desire to enter and got no answer, so they went in. These are generally the most dangerous warrant entries for everyone, especially the citizens, because the cops are playing fairly loosely with the requirements. It is usually done when they think a true no-knock was justified but the courts would not approve it.

A no-knock warrant is one specifically authorized by the court with no requirement to knock or announce their presence. The justification must show either extreme danger to the officers (such as known violent history, etc.) or extreme danger to the evidence being destroyed if there is any delay (such as known drugs being flushed). State courts have been much tighter on both this and probable cause, in my experience, than federal courts. Courts at all levels don't really like the no-knock warrants and they are not as common as tv would lead you to believe.

As said by others, warrant service is dangerous in and of itself, both to the officer and to the resident. No knock warrants are even more so. But, I have to admit that there are cases where a no-knock warrant is justified, either for the officer's safety or the evidence. I tend to agree that the courts are still way too lax on approving and supervising these, but I think we do need them allowed.

SWAT team warrant service is also way more dangerous than it should be. The good part in Texas is that this actually provides a defense for the homeowner who defends himself since the people coming in the door are not in their normal uniform. Our laws provide for the presumption that you knew the person was a police officer if they are in the distinctive uniform of the police. The bad part is that it seems like juries and prosecutors in Texas don't truly abide by this provision as I see it.

Excaliber wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:One officer I know at relatively small town (population 25,000) had a clever scenario. On one search warrant, he had the utilities department call and tell perpetrator he was $15 past due on a water bill and needed to pay it in person that day or his water would be turned off. He left, was detained at the office, and the police executed the search warrant while he was being interviewed.

I very much favor a little creativity like this over violent dynamic entries for the reasons cited by Charles in this thread. It's not hard to come up with a way to separate the suspect from the premises and go after what you need to recover with low risk to both officers and occupants.

I remember hearing after the fact that Vernon Howell went into town frequently and was often alone. So it would have been easy to snatch him up without a lot of risk. However, that doesn't make for good propaganda. It also bears the risk of a trial by jury instead of a sympathetic media.

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

nightmare69 wrote:If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

Since you have no way of knowing what room they may be in, or where their weapons may be located, or if everyone inside IS an armed and violent felon...the assumption that breaking down the door and rushing in will allow you to get control of the suspects before they can get to a weapon is both risky and optimistic. The one thing that's certain is, it definitely increases the risk of SOMEONE getting shot...whether it's a real bad guy, a LEO, or an innocent bystander, or an innocent homeowner in the case of a wrong address. What is gained by a high risk assault, that couldn't be accomplished by maintaining surveillance until they left the house? As in the Killeen case, the intel is often wrong... it wasn't a "stash house", there were no drugs found, just a pipe...and an officer lost his life. The risk / reward just isnt there in most cases.

nightmare69 wrote:If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

In the Academy the whole idea sounds exciting, maybe even fun for some, until they go banging in a pitch black house at 3 am not knowing if there is someone inside waiting at the other end of that fatal funnel with an AK47. The first thought is usually something close to this: "This vest feels way too thin and way too small." Or as Chief Brody said in the movie Jaws, "I think we need a bigger boat." Some folks thrive on the rush, some try to hide the sheer terror, some walk away and never look back, and some get hurt. There are better ways, most of the time.

nightmare69 wrote:If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

Why not snag them when they are out and about away from their guns, or at least most of them? After you arrest the suspects then you can go search the house and seize whatever? I think the storming in by surprise is better in theory than practice.

I realize it makes for a more dramstic appearance for promoting the war on drugs and is much more exciting. I just don't think it appropriate the majority of the time it is used. Now, if I as a cop getting to use all the cool equipment and storm in like that, I may have a different opinion. I bet it is one been of an adrenaline rush.

mojo84 wrote:... If they can convince the judge it will improve ... preservation of evidence to not knock, ....

Viewed through the lens of my belief that the so-called "War on Drugs" has been a colossal failure that has also been used to justify destroying many civil liberties, I'd also like to point out that major quantities of drugs cannot be destroyed while knocking, only minor quantities can be flushed in that period of time.

So consider this. An officer goes up and knocks on the door. Minor quantities of drugs are flushed. Problem solved! Repeat every few days if you want.

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

Why not snag them when they are out and about away from their guns, or at least most of them? After you arrest the suspects then you can go search the house and seize whatever? I think the storming in by surprise is better in theory than practice.

Well in that particular scenario stash houses may rarely, if ever, be unguarded. Many people are always armed. You honestly would have a better chance at catching me away from a gun in my house than out and about. You may also be dealing with smaller depts which just can't spare the manpower to have a large group of officers waiting an unknown amount of time for a suspect to move to an area where a takedown is safer. You might be able to schedule a group of officers for a 5:30 raid but not an all day surveillance. You also have risks when conducting arrests in uncontrolled locations. Then of course you may still have people in the original location that you need to search that may still pose a risk.

I'm convinced that any raid is dangerous and that the danger to the innocent and officers escalates when it's a raid on a bad location or based on incorrect information. I'm not really convinced that the no knock part of the equation is that big of an issue when there is a negative result. While I here some LEO's concerned about the proliferation of no knocks you hear very few wanting to end them altogether. I looked and I haven't found any facts or studies to back up the claim that it puts officers at additional risk for the average warrant service and there is reasonable claims about the general effectiveness of no knocks in trulley high risk situations. To me the claim that no knocks increases risk to officers is about like saying traffic stops increase risk. Officers will be at risk no matter what just by doing their job but what is the best way to manage that risk.