home

The Danger of No Knock Warrants

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 12:39:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Radley Balko has an excellent article up at Slate on SWAT, no-knocks, and the Hudson Supreme Court case that will be decided soon.

As the name indicates, a "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.

These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of "wrong door" raids we read about in the news.

It's a really important topic and I recommend reading the whole article.

< Bush Administration Plans for Regime Change in Iran | Niger Document Forgers Named >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Danger of No Knock Warrants | 16 comments (16 topical)
    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly
    Yup, couldn't agree more.
    this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
    They are, and shouldn't be unless one of the above circumstances is also met. They are dangerous, and it's never worth increasing risk for a bag-o-dope. Alhtough I have to disagree with some of Balko's commenter's comments, and his use of the term dynamic entry. Dynamic entry is not the equivalent of a no knock warrant.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    "killin', dyin', cryin', and being white... no knock" Gil Scott Heron

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    Particularly meaningful in the context of seizure of high value property as one of the motives for the raid. As has been noted here seizure is a civil court issue, and not dependent on a conviction. If I remember correctly the local police force gets the property seized, houses, boats, cars. etc while only 5 or 10 percent goes to the feds. Police greed plus an unreliable source can lead to very nasty situations. 'Wrong door' raids can lead to the death of an innocent, shot by the SWAT team while reaching for a gun to protect from intruders.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    White Supremacist Meetings, NRA Headquarters, RNC Offices, Halliburton Offices, Enron Sleeper Cells, Delay's house/offices, cheney's places, stuff like that. I could see a call for it.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    seizure is a civil court issue, and not dependent on a conviction.
    True enough, but there is still a burden of proof. It's not automatic.
    If I remember correctly the local police force gets the property seized, houses, boats, cars. etc while only 5 or 10 percent goes to the feds.
    You've nearly got it reversed. For every dollar seized, the agency responsible for the seizure gets about 15 cents. Seized property (at least where I work) has to be liquidated at a U.S. Marshalls auction, or the seizing agency must purchase it for the value it will obtain at auction. The primary reason for a SWAT team is to serve high risk warrants and other critical situations, not generate revenue.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    Patrick-How do you square this?
    Why do our courts tolerate these outrageous legalized thefts? Because they get their cut. It's completely legal for confiscated property to be used by police, prosecutors and judges, so long as it's for official business. In 1996, a federal district court even ruled that police can personally receive 25% of the value of any confiscated home, car, or business.
    link or this in WA:
    More than $42 million has been forfeited under the state's current law over the past eight years. People who are innocent of any wrongdoing can lose cars, houses, cash, and other property. Police agencies keep 90 percent of the proceeds generated through these sales, providing an incentive for property seizures.
    ACLU

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 03:19:27 PM EST
    Squeaky, They do get their cut, but it's only about 15% after everyone else is done getting their cut. As for the 42 million dollar figure, that avergaes out to just over 5 million a year, total forfeiture. The ACLU's 90% figure has to includes the courts, DA's, feds, and local agencies, probably including 25% that goes to court ordered drug counseling. What I'm wondering is where the 10% goes that they are claiming isn't law enforcement related. It all depends on how one defines the groups that get the money. The seizing agency, the one that actually found the property to be seized, gets about 15% of seizure. I may be off by a percent or two here and there, but I'm sure the exact figures are out there.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Gosh Patrick, it does seem that greed plays a big part in choosing who to arrest. Combined with no-knock SWAT teams this is quite alarming. Glad to hear it is news to you. And contrary to your implication it seems quite easy to get the courts to issue seizure papers.
    Although the police had no evidence that the deceased homeowner was involved in drug dealing, an informant's vague, uncorroborated assertion was sufficient to evict the owners and seize the property. While government agents can use hearsay evidence to justify a seizure, property owners are usually prohibited from offering hearsay evidence to support their claims.
    The countless stories that are out there show that police routinely use the seizure tactic for reasons other then upholding the law. It turns out to be very difficult to get the property back. Most make a deal as their pickup truck is needed for work. It is startling that in 70% to 80% of seizures no criminal charges are filed. Very hard to get the property back. At best it can take more than a year at worst 5 years and tons of cash.
    In most forfeiture court proceedings, it is up to the owner to prove that his house, his car, or the cash in his wallet was legally obtained--the government has no obligation to prove that the property is guilty. The fact that a government official makes an unsubstantiated assertion that a piece of property was somehow involved in illicit activity effectively transfers the ownership of that property to the government.
    Neat trick: The property is deemed 'guilty' but there is no due process for property. link
    State and federal asset-forfeiture laws allow police and government agencies to appropriate confiscated property for their own use so long as it is in "the line of duty." A whole industry is evolving around asset confiscation. Police and government agencies love it because it is a cheap and easy way to increase their revenues. Informants and crooks love it -- some of them now make up to $780,000 a year entrapping and turning in neighbors and former friends. Judges love it because they typically get 20% of the forfeited property for their courts. Sheriffs and DEA agents love it because they get first pick of confiscated assets.
    link In some jurisdictions seizure is a huge cash cow business. Your figures are not correct. In 2004 Utah recently got 80% of money from a drug seizure. The people had a referendum overturned he unfair seizure law and now the police are crying poverty. They want the law back and are lobbiying and in the courts for it. linked text

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    I think no-knock I think Alberta Spruill. Time to ban the no-knock, except for immediate threats.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:49:54 PM EST
    Sadly enough an officer asserting he/she had "consent" to enter is often enough to overcome warrant requirements. While I get the importance of the case(s), it seems that the police are becoming more and more informed as to what the magic words are to avoid 4th amendment challenges. So, while there is little left of the 4th in terms of the law, in practicality there is even less to work with. An informed officer can get away with almost anything!

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimcee on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 05:56:28 PM EST
    Actually if the police agencies would just stop getting all a twitter over trying to make it on the COPS show and consider that bashing in someone's door and holding them at gun point while screaming is a bit over the top then everyone would be better off. In my town we have had a few of these erroneous 'break-ins' by the police over alledged 'drug operations' and not only does it make the general population distrustful of the police they have caused the taxpayers quite a bit in civil damages. Perhaps the police need to do a little self-policing in this respect.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    The confiscation system has always reminded me of tax collectors in Roman times. Nobody thought it was ethical back then, either.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#15)
    by Aaron on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    The people who run the meth labs across this country have adapted to these types of tactics by booby trapping their cook sites. More than a few law-enforcement swat people have gotten cooked themselves after stumbling over trip wires. Now they send in dogs first, and let them get blown up instead. I'd like to see the methamphetamine problem highlighted on this blog, there was an excellent show concerning this expanding epidemic on PBS the other night. I had friends doing crystal meth back in the late 80s when Coke was big in South Florida and no one even knew what this stuff was. It was frightening what it did to them in a short period of time. It alter their personalities so drastically as to make them unrecognizable. Drugs derived from coca and poppy are almost tame in comparison to this stuff. And you can buy the critical ingredient at any drugstore while the rest of the necessary chemicals are readily available.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 08, 2006 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    Great. Just blow up dogs. That's just swell. Hows a bout we send in klan members instead? It's bad enough what carcinogen christie did at epa when she gave the all-clear to go back to the WTC for rescue personnel and the people in the area. I wonder why the dogs are dying and the people have an abnormally-high rate of cancer and respiratory problems. There really ought to be a special section in hell for these folks. I'd take a dog over any of 'em.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    Aaron...sure, meth is nasty stuff. Militarizing the police to knock down doors is certainly not the answer. I'd say the best we could hope for is to reduce meth use by extensive education and rehabilitation of addicts, not sending the gestapo to the streets with machine guns and flash grenades. That just gets more people killed and more lives ruined, without any noticeable improvement.

    Re: The Danger of No Knock Warrants (none / 0) (#18)
    by Aaron on Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 10:22:00 PM EST
    kdog In fact the methamphetamine problems in this country and in this hemisphere would dry up in a matter of months if the US pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing and selling pseudoephedrine and ephedrine over-the-counter. While there has been some effort to control these amphetamines and their sales in the US, pharmaceutical companies continue to ship hundreds of tons of these cold medicines to Mexico and elsewhere. These over-the-counter drugs are in turn sold directly to gangs who control the production this drug and are brought back into the United States to be processed into methamphetamine all across the US. As usual the pharmaceutical companies put their profits ahead of the health and well-being of human beings. These companies and the CEOs who run them are the new Colombian drug lords in sheep's clothing, enablers and facilitators who are lining their pockets by praying off the poor and disenfranchised.

    The Danger of No Knock Warrants | 16 comments (16 topical)