After police killed Breonna Taylor in a home invasion search for drugs, no-knock warrants have gone from little-known law enforcement tool to fodder for dinner-table conversation.
Some jurisdictions have moved to ban them altogether. That's a mistake. Taylor's death rightly cries out for dramatic limits, but no-knocks are needed in imminent danger cases.
First, some history. In sanctifying an Englishman's home as his castle, 1600s England required law officers to knock and announce themselves before forcibly entering and searching a residence. Several centuries later, England's former colonies and the nation they gave rise to are heavily armed, with indoor plumbing enabling suspects to flush away evidence.
Little wonder "knock and announce" warrants, which give suspects time to arm and potentially attack police, became less popular over time. Law enforcement needs led courts to permit no-knock forcible entry, often in the wee hours, giving police an edge over sleeping or groggy inhabitants.
Notably, no-knock warrants, especially those in low-level cases, are often drafted by young prosecutors on dreaded 24-hour full-week search warrant duty. During occasional late-night meetings, prosecutors evaluate information presented by officers. If they believe probable cause to search exists, prosecutors then draft an affidavit and warrant request and present them to a judge, often at his or her home in the wee hours.
As a young prosecutor, I didn't tend to worry whether no-knock entry was specifically justified in individual cases. Armed resistance and evidence destruction are possible any time cops need to enter a home, so requesting no-knock entry reflexively made sense.
Around the country, no-knocks became far too common. In the 1980s, courts granted around 1,500 such warrants a year. The most accurate data reflects that by 2010, the figure was 60,000 to 70,000 a year.
Between 2010 and 2016, at least 94 civilians and 13 police officers died in no-knock or very brief-knocking raids.