What do you think a “no-knock” warrant means?
To me it describes a legal warrant signed by a judge that authorizes the police to enter a building without giving warning to the people inside. In other words, bust down the door and charge in to catch the inhabitants off-guard. The key here is that it is a signed search or arrest warrant that authorizes this kind of entry.
What do you understand the term to mean?
I am asking because I just talked to a senior police officer with years of command experience and he described something entirely different. As I understand him, in his experience a “no-knock” warrant is when the police come to the door, knock and ask permission to enter, the resident says no, the police detect an “emergency” situation-say they smell marijuana or hear a child cry, then they enter the residence in response to the emergency. Without a signed warrant. In the lingo of the police they made their own “warrant” by knocking, getting a no, and making up an emergency. He said that almost never happens any more.
I think I remember back in the 70s when laws were passed authorizing a surprise warrant because suspects would hear the cops at the door and flush the drugs down the toilet before the cops could get in and stop them. That is, no knocking just charge in. But apparently that isn’t what is meant today. What does the term mean to you?
I’d describe the second case as “an exigent circumstances” entry. They’ll claim they had no time to apply for a warrant because as you said “someone cried for help yada yada”.
I remember during the Nixon administration an article on some raid using a no-knock warrant; basically, to avoid giving the occupants time to flush the drugs or whatever else they do to hide evidence (or grab their guns). In the 70’s it was an extremely rare event, which is why the Time Magazine news story mentioned the fact. Nowadays, it seems routine - no need to prove anything like the occupants may have lethal weapons, or have an opportunity to dispose of drugs.
Yes, exigent circumstances are exactly that - no warrant, apparent circumstances that make it unlikely that waiting for a warrant to be issued will address the issue (like cries for help, or following a fugitive running into a building. Just the opposite of a warrant.
The police officer who told you a no-knock was an exigent circumstances situation is either:
-displaying the astounding level of knowledge, training, and critical thinking that we see with some officers …or…
-knows you would be appalled at what a real no-knock from a real actual judge permits the police to do, and so is trying to bullshit you with diversion and self-justification.
I’m more appalled that this police officer, in a command position and with years of experience, is openly admitting he lies in his official duties. His lying is a big problem and his belief that he can openly admit to lying without any concern about the possible consequences is also a big problem.
Right? It sounds to me like this officer did not know what a no-knock warrant was so instead of admitting that he just made something up.
Yes, a no-knock warrant is exactly what the OP thought of. What the officer is talking about is an exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.
Just like me or any other person, a police officer can walk up to your door and knock on it and attempt to speak with you. You, just as you can tell me to get lost, you can tell a police officer the same thing. The exigent circumstances doctrine is that when the officer knocks on the door and hears a voice yell “Help me” then there is no time for a warrant. The “exigencies” of the situation require that the officer act right now instead of leaving and coming back with a warrant.
This being GQ, and all, this exigency requirement is very broad and in many cases an officer can hear a flushing toilet and decide that you are about to destroy evidence. As I have argued in court (and lost) if an officer knocks on the door and I am on the can, I am naturally going to flush before answering the door. That seems scant justification.
Back in the 1980s the Minneapolis police carried out a no-knock warrant on a home that was believed to be dealing drugs. For some reason they decided the best way to enter the place was to suddenly knock down one wall of the house with a bucket loader. IIRC, they did this twice to the same house. The whole thing was recorded on video, and made the evening news at the time.
Every profession has it’s humorous or sarcastic slang terminology that it uses for common goods, services, events, etc.
While you wouldn’t call that a no-knock warrant in a court of law or in front of a TV microphone, I wouldn’t be surprised if the officers of that department referred to that type of forced entry as a “no knock warrant.”
I remember a nasty incident at a job I once had when an engineer replied to an email question from a technical publications department writer using a rather unflattering term that we used among ourselves and the idiot writer just copied the email verbatim into a customer document. Hilarity ensued.
Ultimately, it sounds like the cops aren’t quite understanding that making up exigent circumstances in lieu of a warrant in order to try and catch a potential criminal is MORE corrosive to our social fabric in the long haul as it would be to let the criminals go because they didn’t have the proper warrants in hand.
That’s another symptom of the rot / derangement that’s gone on within the profession of policing over the last several decades. It’s literally become acceptable within the profession to flout the law and do stuff like this in some sort of misguided attempt to enforce what they consider the law. As if ALL the laws don’t apply to them somehow.
It sounds to me like this officer did not know what a no-knock warrant was so instead of admitting that he just made something up.