Police union to state lawmakers: Don't mess with no-knock warrants

My family that are cops and have served No-Knock warrants hate them. Yes it possibly saves evidence from being destroyed, but it also puts them in danger. People are going to react when someone smashes into their houses and they will often react violently. If there is a weapon involved the situation can very easily go from bad to deadly.
 
Why are police allowed to be unionized and why are they allowed to dictate the law ? Police are supposed to implement the law not dictate it. This is why there is a growing anti police sentiment.
 
Regardless of the officer being experienced or not a warrant is dangerous. Even if the warrant does not involve knocking it is risky since you do not know what kind mess would come to you. Warrants just need to handled carefully.
 
There have been incidents where police stormed into the wrong house, terrorized the residents and once they discovered they were in the wrong place, simply walked out without offering any apologies. While I must admit that state lawmakers shouldn't make the work the police do any harder, police need to be certain that they'll find whatever [evidence] it is they are looking for before making a move.
 
It sounds like it could put everyone in danger. If it is a serious enough warrant to be "no-knock", then it's probably drug-related, or some other heavy offense. People like this have enemies other than the police. They might think a group is coming in to kill them, and are going to defend themselves. The evidence be damned, I think there should always be a knock. It's better than everyone ending up dead, including the police.
 
There is definitely a place for "no-knock" warrants but I think that they should only be granted when there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that something untoward is happening at that property. Or, or course, when there is risk to life. Too many things can go wrong for such warrants to be used more frequently and they should probably exist as a last resort.
 
It will be really sad if such instances create deadly havoc with the person involved. A lot of people might get into danger. I think it is quite great if one understands what they are getting into before getting into it.
 
I understand the Police argument in this and I sympathize with them, but I'm more concerned with innocent citizens who are put through terror situations with no rights and no say so in the matter. I want the Police to be able to do their jobs unimpeded, but not at the expense of innocent people.
 
Kittyworker said:
My family that are cops and have served No-Knock warrants hate them. Yes it possibly saves evidence from being destroyed, but it also puts them in danger. People are going to react when someone smashes into their houses and they will often react violently. If there is a weapon involved the situation can very easily go from bad to deadly.
Click to expand...

That is the truth. With No-Knocks you risk all sorts of unknown bodily harm to save a few bits of evidence. Sometimes that evidence may or may not break a case to be certain but I don't think it warrants risking a death or two.
 
The thing is that even if they knock in most of these instances if the people inside are armed the cops can still get hurt. A violent offender is not going to think "okay the police are knocking at my door let me just sit here and wait with my hands up". I don't think that no knock warrants should be issued off of "anonymous complaints" which is usually where the mistaken address comes from, but they do have a place.
 
Shimus said:
That is the truth. With No-Knocks you risk all sorts of unknown bodily harm to save a few bits of evidence. Sometimes that evidence may or may not break a case to be certain but I don't think it warrants risking a death or two.
Click to expand...

I think you're making a strong point here, no-knocks will, if anything, even create more chaos that might result in unnecessary risk for both the suspects and the officers. I don't think no-knocks should necessarily be abolished though, I just think the approach should fit the suspicion, if you have a suspicion that the potential offenders are armed to the teeth, going in guns blazing might not be the right approach
 
Last edited:
I can understand why they are needed for specific cases, but most people who are suspects would be careful enough to make sure there is no evidence there or the person they are looking for. It's always been a balance between justice and rights, and the law with freedoms falls on the side of rights, so justice can be hard to enact. I think they need to be careful issuing them because rights are being infringed if they make a mistake.
 
Also another helpful fact to point out is if you're serving no-knock warrants or trying to capture someone without voicing your intent, 7 out of 10 times these people will already know you're coming or have video surveillance to alert them. Or a social networking text message, or an email. Regardless of the media platform, the criminals they serve these "no-knocks" to are bad folks, generally. You wouldn't get a no-knock if you're suspected of something, but rather if you already had evidence of wrongdoing as well.
 
It's true: Knocking alerts the potential criminal. I have a hard time deciding what side of the fence I'm on here. I have rights as a citizen & owner of my home but I lose those rights if I am active in a criminal lifestyle. However, police have obtained warrants for people's homes that are not criminals. It makes sense but if I were the potential criminal I wouldn't be happy about a no knock warrant at all seeing as I carry/own guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top