That's what I thought until I read the wikipedia article. That article seems to give the opposite impression, but it is vague and doesn't even constitute a real source anyway. So I'm on the hunt for a real source for this information.



I don't think that it is within my skill set. I don't speak legalese well enough to dig through and find the info. I'm not sure I'll ever find someone who does.

At this point, I'm feeling comfortable about throwing in the towel and just saying that it's above my head to become educated on this situation.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Sep 24 2020 10:10pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant


you must have been reading under the "legal authority" section. there are arguments that "no-knock" warrants are unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. in which i believe i would have to agree.

yea, I linked that article 20 posts ago. The important things to note are:

1-



It's worded vaguely enough that it gives the impression that cops should identify themselves, but doesn't tackle the issue specifically. This makes sense for wiki, since it is general info whereas the laws vary by jurisdiction.

2- No matter what Wikipedia says, it isn't a real source.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Sep 25 2020 12:00am

God I hope the vehicle is okay.

imagine getting pwned by a prius in hollywood lmao

https://nypost.com/2020/09/25/charles-barkley-breonna-taylor-shouldnt-be-lumped-in-with-george-floyd/

Honestly I agree with Sir Charles. the on site police misconduct here is far less problematic than no-knock warrants are. as a tangential topic multiple residencies on a single warrant should be ended. the merit for a warrant to enter a property should be judged entire on it's own, without a preponderance of evidence used to get a warrant for several locations. even if someone owns both/all or lives in both/all.

don't get me wrong, we have murky details about the presence/lack of announcing upon forced entry, and we have reports of bullets fired from outside of the residence. but officers involved were seemingly misled by the vast difference between how dangerous of a warrant they thought they were acting on vs the actual danger/criminality present inside that home.

How do courts come to terms with the "no knock" permission and the conflict of the 4th Amendment. Has anybody ever laid this out? Probable cause would have to be SUPER high IMO.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What do you mean come to terms, it's right there in the text. Emphasize 'unreasonable' & 'probable cause'.

Cops have to get a warrant for a search & seizure. The warrant is only approved if there's some sort of evidence which qualifies as a reason or probable cause.

Only issue i see with this case is possibly that warrant was based on made up or inflated evidence.