Posted: 10/2/2009 4:33:00 PM EDT
|
Before I start; Don't turn this in to a badge bashing thread.
How do you feel about no-knock warrants? I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is a patrolman in a nearby town of about 45 thousand people. The town is pretty poor and has a growing drug problem. I've done a few ride-alongs and seen what shit like meth and heroin can do to a community, and how these drug dealers operate. We got talking about no-knock warrants. I'm on the fence with this issue. I can certainly see the tactical advantage they provide and am in favor of anything that helps to mitigate the threat against a cop's life. At the same time, I'm well aware of the constitutional ambiguity, and that there have been cases of mistaken identity that ended in tragedy. It's also been documented that home invaders have disguised themselves as cops and used the same tactics to victimize people. I know most of the members of this forum would meet someone who entered their home unnannounced and in a violent fashion with a hail of lead. |
|
They have their place. A no knock warrant is something that has to be planned out, it just can't "happen". The agency I worked for had a very specific protocol for a no-knock entry. It involved making sure the house was the right house, who was in the house, and was it absolutely necessary. Before I participated in a no-knock warrant entry, every member of the team was briefed, a perimeter was established, uniforms were present, and surveillance was done. It was never a situation where someone said, "Hey, let's go do a no-knock". Consequently, they were not the norm. ETA: We would rather wait for someone to leave their residence and have a patrol car stop them and take them into custody. |
|
Quoted: Just as a suggestion, if you would have posted this in the BOTS forum instead, you would have gotten a much more unbiased response, and a greatly reduced chance of badge bashing. Before I start; Don't turn this in to a badge bashing thread. How do you feel about no-knock warrants? I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is a patrolman in a nearby town of about 45 thousand people. The town is pretty poor and has a growing drug problem. I've done a few ride-alongs and seen what shit like meth and heroin can do to a community, and how these drug dealers operate. We got talking about no-knock warrants. I'm on the fence with this issue. I can certainly see the tactical advantage they provide and am in favor of anything that helps to mitigate the threat against a cop's life. At the same time, I'm well aware of the constitutional ambiguity, and that there have been cases of mistaken identity that ended in tragedy. It's also been documented that home invaders have disguised themselves as cops and used the same tactics to victimize people. I know most of the members of this forum would meet someone who entered their home unnannounced and in a violent fashion with a hail of lead. Also, this topic has been hashed over here in GD many, many times. |
|
Quoted:
Before I start; Don't turn this in to a badge bashing thread. . I know most of the members of this forum would meet someone who entered their home unannounced and in a violent fashion with a hail of lead. As it stands now; I believe that the majority of this board have not done anything to deserve a 'no knock' visit. So the typical ARFCOM member meeting a greeting party of LEOs in this way is... well.. moot (IMHO). If I am engaged in stupid activities that warrant a no knock; well, play stupid games..... |
|
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood.
LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. |
|
Quoted: I have to disagree. There are some cops that are power happy, no doubt. However, the majority of them have no reason to perform a no-knock entry. Their job description just doesn't allow for it. Keep in mind that if it is a no-knock warrant, a Judge signed off on it. As I said previously, it has it's place. Cops want to go home after their shift, just like everyone else. Nothing wrong with that. Their families want them to come home after their shift. The idea that cops are expendable is wrong. No-knock entries are not all that common. They do happen and sometimes there are mistakes. The case agent has a responsibility to make sure that every entry is necessary, planned out, and mistake free. I do not understand how an entry is executed on the wrong residence. Intel has to be conducted to avoid errors. If the wrong house is hit, someone didn't do their homework and should be taken to the wood shed.Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. |
|
Quoted:
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. And here...we...go.... 
|
|
I agree with 1387Delta. I've been on several no-knock warrants, and they do serve a legitimate purpose, especially when drugs are involved. I have seen dope dealers flush dope, put it in the clothes washer, all sorts of weird stuff to try and get rid of it. Time is critical in this circumstance, for evidence preservation. Of course, if we can get them on a traffic stop, so much the better, as it eliminates many options the criminal at home has.
As 1387Delta pointed out, intelligence and surveillance are key to a successful warrant service. Savvy cops know this and realize that judges will refuse to sign their warrants if they present recurring bad evidence. And no, not all cops are power hungry adrenaline junkies who wantonly trample the constitution for shits and giggles. I for one, attempt to preserve suspects' rights, sometimes to a fault. Cops are all about their safety, and the safety of all parties in general. We no more want to see the suspect injured than one of our own. When you see cops high-fiving and giving atta-boys after a search warrant, it's because no one was injured, the suspect is in custidy without incident, and the evidence was successfully recovered. We're not out there bragging about how we kicked ass and took names––hell, we're too busy doffing all that extra gear and collecting evidence to be doing such trivial stuff. Is their an adrenaline rush when you jump our of the car in entry gear and an M4 in hand? Sure. That's mostly due to the fact that you are rushing into an unknown, potentially lethal situation, NOT because we're all geared up like JBTs. That's soemthing that most people won't ever feel, and in reality they shouldn't have to. And regarding those who are typically the target of a no-knock warrant: In my experience, we've normally bought drugs from the house, have seen drug activity at the location, and/or the suspects involved are repeat felony offenders. We don't perform no-knock warrants for traffic violators. Yes, there are occasional mistakes made. And there are power-hungry cops. But don't paint us all with the broad brush of being JBTs. Especially here on ARFcom, I think you'll find the cop members are just as concerned about constitutional rights as our non-LE membership. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. And here...we...go.... Prove me wrong..........remove it from your list of options. Won't give it up? Than I'm right. LEO want's to do no knocks because it serves their purpose even though it frequently endangers innocent people. If you refuse to put the safety of citizens ahead of your tactical advantage by removing no knocks from the list of tools than you cannot prove me wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. And here...we...go.... Prove me wrong..........remove it from your list of options. Won't give it up? Than I'm right. LEO want's to do no knocks because it serves their purpose even though it frequently endangers innocent people. If you refuse to put the safety of citizens ahead of your tactical advantage by removing no knocks from the list of tools than you cannot prove me wrong. First off, learn to spell. LEO is a singular term. When you paint with your broad brush, put an S after it. |
|
I have debated this and debated this topic and have yet to arrive at an easy answer. I was LEO in Texas, and we had to deal with this topic during the Congressional hearings regarding the Waco debacle. There was one law enforcement officer who testified: "the day of two officers in suits walking up to a house, knocking, and presenting a search warrant are over."
The universality of that statement was real hard for some of us to deal with. This was a case about a suspected technicality by a group that was openly and regularly away from their domicile in a public place, that could have easily been taken into custody at any of those times. (I am not trying to dredge up a dead horse, I'm just using it to make the point about how sometimes no-knocks can be a disastrous alternative to much simpler techniques.) Where possible, why not take suspects into custody away from the house, where unknowns can be eliminated? Dynamic entry of a house IS a good option in some cases, obviously hostage rescue and gang busts are two instances. But as was stated above, for those other more gray-area justifications for no-knocks, ONLY if you do your homework. Yes, there's the issue of evidence preservation. And in drug prosecutions this has become a bigger problem. But teams entering the wrong address is totally and completely unforgivable. Several cities' SWAT teams have been dismantled as a result of lethal no-knocks on the wrong addresses, and I think this is absolutely correct. I mean, with four to six men in a stack, how can one of them not take two seconds to verify the correct house number? And innocents have lost their lives unnecessarily. I don't think too many honest officers will deny it can sometimes lead to "mission creep", which is coming up with new reasons to utilize the new tactics and equipment. Best I can figure, this mission creep is the biggest problem with no-knock warrants. Yes they are a vital tool for LEOs, but only with judicious and conservative use. No-knocking someone for unpaid parking tickets sounds ludicrous, but I have read reports of it being suggested. That mission creep certainly doesn't help our perception with the public. Quoted:
Yes, there are occasional mistakes made. And there are power-hungry cops. But don't paint us all with the broad brush of being JBTs. Especially here on ARFcom, I think you'll find the cop members are just as concerned about constitutional rights as our non-LE membership. Agreed! In fact for those of you who like Glocks, my understanding is that without LEOs "going to bat" for them, they would never have been approved for civilian use. So anyone who uses Glocks, thank an LEO! |
|
Quoted: I think the xray Techs should have to stand beside the table with me when I'm getting an xray to prove that it's safe.Quoted: Quoted: Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. And here...we...go.... Prove me wrong..........remove it from your list of options. Won't give it up? Than I'm right. LEO want's to do no knocks because it serves their purpose even though it frequently endangers innocent people. If you refuse to put the safety of citizens ahead of your tactical advantage by removing no knocks from the list of tools than you cannot prove me wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. And here...we...go.... Prove me wrong..........remove it from your list of options. Won't give it up? Than I'm right. LEO want's to do no knocks because it serves their purpose even though it frequently endangers innocent people. If you refuse to put the safety of citizens ahead of your tactical advantage by removing no knocks from the list of tools than you cannot prove me wrong. The safety of others is my prime objective. A no knock can be used efficiently and safely, and there is a time and place for them to be used. With proper investigation and process, they can be executed correctly. That said, I prefer to do things a different way, and can survive without them. I take it your opinion as an LEO on no knocks is that you disagree with them? |
|
Quoted:
Fairly simple answer and the logic is easily understood. LEO almost to a man are all gungho and happy to have the no knock power.....Cause it give them a tactical advantage and thus increases their odds of surviving a warrant service. LEO are far less concerned with the rights, safety and property of citizens than they are with their own personal safety comfort and convenience. If given an option or tool that gives them an advantage over someone they will always take and use that option or tool. Any other consideration is irrelevant to them. The number one priority to them is going home that night. If the object of their no knock survives that's fine.....if not.... OH WELL....as long as they get to go home in one piece. Virtually anyone on the other side of the equation sees and understands the dangers involved and will be for elimination of or greatly reduced use of no knock entries. 
IN ON ONE for this one. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.