Are there any good, constitutionally sound arguments FOR no knocks?
Legal scholars don't even agree about basic questions like "can a professor publish a paper that lacks citations to relevant work, without violating securities law?" [1]. The odds of getting useful conlaw analysis on HN are nill.
That being said, we shouldn't always be looking to the COTUS to save us. Congress exists to make laws. If we want this practice banned, we need to enact a law to ban it.
[1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/12/15/sec-commissioner-...
I don't buy that though, it wasn't written in Ancient Koine Greek or Hebrew on lost tablets, heck it wasn't written that long ago compared to ancient texts and scriptures!
We've got books and legal cases to reference and confirm what was meant, we even know all about the first cases handled by the Supreme Court. The moment people start to interpret instead of reading it literally and based upon the historical context (seeking refuge from tyranny) is the moment they get confused and get the whole thing wrong.
They do because they establish basic strictures on the federal government itself. Critically the constitution, and bill of rights, outline what powers are granted to the federal government and which are expressly reserved for the states and citizens. Its the inverse of many (most?) countries that Ive seen. The fed government was granted limited, specific, powers by its constituents. The states and citizens do not derive their rights & powers from the federal government.
The idea is to establish the rules of the political game by consensus, as a stabilizing influence on a government that can have its membership completely replaced every 6 years. Like any other contract, when there’s a dispute, the first thing to look at is what was actually agreed upon and then try to map that onto whatever situation you find yourself in.
Generally, the courts in the US view themselves as arbitrators: their job is to determine how the text of the law (including the Constitution) maps onto the many messy edge cases that come up in real life in the fairest way they can. That means, in part, making determinations consistently between various cases; this is where case law gets its authority.
In theory, political and moral concerns are not in the purview of the courts, but instead are be encoded in the written laws they interpret. Modern legal opinions need the endorsement of enough legislators to be enshrined at the appopriate level of law before they can be enforced; it makes for slow progress, but hopefully avoids a lot of wrong turns.
Is politics is completely blocked these days, so most forward movements are by executive orders and appointing judges that can find creative ways to make your political agenda happening without having to do it in the senate.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/opinion/supreme-court-pre...
You can't flush a very large quantity of drugs when the police knock on your door. Not only would you have to do a very extensive amount of pre-planning to destroy evidence, but 2 minutes is not nearly enough time to flush a sellable stash (i.e. if you're a dealer).
Sure, I guess you could have search warrants for small amounts of drugs (i.e. someone you just sold to), but to be perfectly honest kicking in doors over very small amounts of drugs (i.e. an end user) is beneath the dignity of the state to prosecute in that manner.
And even if you could flush your entire stash, you get a warrant either for the septic tank contents or what's about to enter the sewer. Almost like you have to do actual police work rather than kicking in someone's door in the middle of the night, throwing flashbangs into cribs, and massacring homeowners who dared defend themselves against what in any other circumstance would obviously be a violent home invasion.
(It should be absolutely embarrassing that laws get made like this; a lot of gun law is based on what Hollywood says about them rather than their reality.)
Drugs are stored off-property or in places where further search warrants are required, like a safe, or a locked toolshed.
In the event something tips them off, they "clean house" and relocate their stash.
It's also dead simple to "stealth" processed drugs -- so simple in-fact that these drugs come in by foot, plane, and cargo boat seemlessly. The only thing you need to worry about is transportation in a vehicle with a tiny solution space for where the drugs could be hidden, upon a search, such as say a small boat or plane. Cars are hit or miss, because a few officers only deal with the dumbest of the dumb drug user day-to-day, while the coast guard has experience with more elaborate setups.
It's kind of ironic. Cops busting down dumb dealers has a way of culling the herd, removing the worst-prepared, and giving more information to the most-prepared, to be even better prepared.
What is "actual police work" in this context? Searching a suspect's home after obtaining a warrant isn't "actual police work"?
> actual police work rather than kicking in someone's door in the middle of the night, throwing flashbangs into cribs, and massacring homeowners who dared defend themselves against what in any other circumstance would obviously be a violent home invasion.
I've executed "no knock" search warrants (we would say "forced entry" or "MOE" in the UK) and caught suspects in the process of destroying evidence. This is like 15 seconds after attempting entry. 2 minutes is easily enough time to flush kgs of drugs or destroy a USB drive.
I think no-knock warrants should be abandoned, because they are dangerous and of limited value, but neither of those reasons are constitutional arguments.
I would argue that police officers transition into soldiers of the state when they hold what soldiers hold (bullet proof vests, flash grenades, automatic machine guns) and arrive in vehicles soldiers arrive in (MRAPs and other APCs). No-knock warrants are essentially the government choosing to "quarter" soldiers inside of some random person's house without their consent, for an unlimited amount of time.
Of course, the Constitution doesn't specify what the difference between a police officer and a soldier is, which I think is an important argument for the Supreme Court to hear anyways. A lot of what the police are (unfairly) allowed to do today stems from this blurred line. In most cases, soldiers are constrained even more than police are (i.e. Rules of Engagement).
IANAL but naively i would think that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." would be applicable, since its kind of unreasonsble to do a no-knock warrant when a normal search would be fully sufficient.
A situation like that probably doesn't require a warrant because it probably falls under the "hot pursuit" exception.
Or say a situation where domestic violence plays a role and someone would be threatened if the police announced themselves
In the Branch Davidian raid in 1993, Janet Reno's crew had sought a no-knock warrant, but they were denied because the objects of the warrant (fully automatic guns and conversion kits) can't be quickly destroyed. They used no-knock tactics anyway.
Is this more about exercising judgement?
Many first-world countries have no-knock warranty but really only the US has so many issues