The Constitutionality of No-Knock Warrants: A Potentially Deadly Search and Seizure Tactic

Photo Source: Shutterstock Image

The Constitutionality of No-Knock Warrants: A Potentially Deadly

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals' rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures." It also establishes that law enforcement may only obtain a warrant when they have probable cause. Of course, as is often the case with the Constitution, not everyone agrees on how to interpret the language of this Amendment. People differ in what they consider "reasonable," and in recent months, with the legality of so-called "no-knock warrants" in question, the different interpretations are more apparent than ever. The tragic death of Breonna Taylor at the hands of police officers in Louisville, Kentucky, sparked protests and calls for police reform. But what is a "no-knock warrant," and does it violate the rights of suspects?

Why Would Police Seek a No-Knock Warrant?

Once police obtain a warrant to search a suspect or the suspect's property, officers typically still must knock on the door and announce themselves. A warrant does not give the right to raid a person's home and shoot at random. In practice, though, police must investigate criminals in situations that present very real risks of physical harm. Knocking on the door of a suspected criminal and announcing that you are there to arrest that person can quickly escalate the situation and result in violence. Another problem for police is that suspects can quickly destroy certain types of evidence, especially evidence in drug cases.

When knocking on a suspect's door and announcing police presence might lead to officers suffering injuries or the loss of evidence needed to obtain a conviction, an argument exists that a no-knock warrant might be "reasonable" under the circumstances.

What does the Court Say About No-Knock Warrants?

Cases questioning the constitutionality of no-knock warrants have made their way to the Supreme Court on several occasions.

According to the rulings, the Fourth Amendment contains a presumption that officers knock and announce themselves. There are valid exceptions to the rule when knocking and announcing places officers and their investigation into jeopardy. However, it is not enough for police to say that all drug investigations place officers in danger and are at high risk for evidence destruction. Instead, each case requires an independent analysis to ensure the protection of the rights of the suspects involved.

Was the No-Knock Warrant Legal in the Investigation that Led to the Death of Breonna Taylor?

Reports regarding the tragic death of Breonna Taylor include inconsistencies that have only worked to fuel political and social discord. For instance, early reports indicated that the police did not even enter the correct apartment unit, but later this information proved incorrect. Police obtained a no-knock warrant to investigate Taylor's former boyfriend, a suspected drug dealer whom police deemed a threat to their safety and who they believed would destroy evidence if officers utilized a standard warrant.

However, at the time of the raid on Taylor's apartment, police had located their primary suspect.

Reports state that officers suspected Taylor played a role in the illegal operation based on alleged sightings of her ex-boyfriend leaving her building with packages. Some of those allegations, including that the former boyfriend and main suspect received packages at Taylor's apartment, appear to be false. Although the warrant listed her name and address, nothing indicated that Taylor posed a threat, nor did anything suggest that her current boyfriend was a threat. And yet, plain-clothed officers broke down the door to Taylor's apartment in the middle the night. Officers found no drugs in the apartment following their deadly raid.

The Department of Justice holds that officers do not need to re-verify the facts that justify a no-knock warrant before entering a person's home. However, suppose the officers have information that indicates that the circumstances that led to the warrant's issuance are no longer valid. In that case, those officers cannot dismiss such facts and continue to execute the no-knock warrant. The known whereabouts of the primary suspect should likely qualify as a circumstance that would make the no-knock warrant no longer necessary and, therefore, no longer valid.

In Taylor's case, the warrant used to raid her apartment was questionable because any evidence linking her to the drug operation was dubious. But also, the application for the warrant itself included statements that appear to have been copied from an earlier warrant application related to a separate location involved in the investigation. It is possible that the police used the language from a previous form to expedite the completion of the application or because they mistakenly copied the language into the new form. If either scenario is the case, officers improperly obtained that warrant. To be considered a violation of Taylor's Fourth Amendment rights, the errors must be either intentional or reckless, though, and whether these issues meet such standards is not immediately clear.

To further muddy the waters, there is a discrepancy as to whether the police did issue a warning and announce themselves as law enforcement before Taylor's boyfriend, believing that intruders were entering the home, fired shots.

How Big of a Problem are No-Knock Warrants?

The Breonna Taylor case presents issues beyond the legality of no-knock warrants, but the no-knock warrant was at least part of what led to the fatal shooting. No-knock warrant use increased amid the "war on drugs," and police frequently use them in drug investigations. Clearly, they are potentially dangerous, but the government does not have data regarding how many people are injured or killed in the course of investigations that involved the use of no-knock warrants. One recent report found that SWAT teams involved in surprise entries over six years led to 81 civilian fatalities and thirteen officer deaths across the United States. The numbers published in that study do not include fatal shootings by plain-clothed officers in raids such as the one that took the life of Breonna Taylor.

What are Officials Doing About No-Knock Warrants and the Risks They Pose?

Kentucky is already considering a bill that would ban the use of no-knock warrants, and the city of Louisville banned these warrants this June. No-knock warrants are already illegal in Oregon and Florida. However, an officer announcing, knocking, and then immediately ramming a door down

might not be distinct from a no-knock warrant in practice. Some legal experts point out that it is more difficult for police to listen to suspects' calls through a wiretap than it is for them to get a warrant permitting them to physically enter a person's home, through the use of force, unexpectedly, in the middle of the night.

While the outcome of the case against the officers involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor has left many people frustrated, saddened, and angry, the case appears to point to a larger, systemic problem with American law enforcement. No-knock warrants are likely one of many police tactics that deserve scrutiny. The important question might not be whether a no-knock warrant is Constitutional, but whether they should remain legal, even if the Supreme Court can justify them under the Constitution.