Legal Analysis

1 Safeguarding Civil Liberties: A Legal Analysis on Protecting Constitutional Rights and Public Safety during No-Knock Warrant Executions Capstone Legal Analysis Paper Submitted to the Faculty of American Public University by Akira Lewis in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS OF LEGAL STUDIES May 2024 American Public University Charles Town, WV 2 Legal Analysis The no-knock warrant issue in society has become one of the most controversial topics, especially the instances where tragedies happened like Breonna Taylor and Amir Locke. These cases only highlight the fact that there is always danger inherent with no-knock warrants even if there is a potential for deadly consequences. This has prompted calls for systemic reforms which would involve all agencies. The public scrunity applied by activists and legal professionals have prompted a total ban on the use of no knock warrants.1 This legal analysis involves not only constitutional principles as well as seeks to address Awkward case law and statutory regulations that govern the use of NKWs, but also the controversies and reform efforts that often surround their use. The primary issue has been based on whether violate forceful approaches under no-knock warrants executions violates the Fourth Amendment designed to protect Americans from unlawful searches and seizure or not, and the processes leading to their authorization which have caused too many violations of individuals’ privacy already.The practice of no-knock warrants did not originate from the Fourth Amendment but has been considered the foundation of policing since the Supreme Court ruled that NKWs could be the exception to the knock-and-announce requirement if law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion that announcing their presence would be dangerous to human life and detrimental to the investigation2. However, the doubtfulness known as no-knock warrants and when their give? executions are carried out often rise to legal scrutiny because the agencies and law enforcement 1 Cook, Blanche Bong. “Something Rots in Law Enforcement and It’s the Search Warrant: The Breonna Taylor Case.” BUL Rev. 102 (2022): 1. 2 Mordechai-Strongin, Ben. “Giving the Fourth Amendment meaning: creating an adversarial warrant proceeding to protect from unreasonable searches and seizures.” U. Mich. JL Reform 56 (2022): 951. sentence here. 3 agents have been known to overpass the boundaries of legal defense, which thereby may raise several questions of whether civil liberties are infringed upon and the efficacy of such methods. When judging the legality of no-knock warrants, we must be especially careful of the way these procedures are consistent with the protections put in place by the Fourth Amendment. In a departure from the officer’s adherence to the Constitution, though the Supreme Court has allowed certain exceptions, judges of law enforcement agencies often abuse the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, especially during the proceedings of the knockless citation? warrants. Hence, these transgressions not only crush the protections of the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures, but also imply the incapability of the warrants which ultimately result in tradgic consequences.3 By reviewing judicial principles that involve trials Awkward concerning rights deficiency in the case of no-knock raids and the principles that have been brought about by judicial rulings in response to the aforementioned infringements a legal discourse can begin. Additionally, this analysis will review the social effects of no-knock warrants and the ongoing attempts to change the way they are issued. No-knock warrants raise not only knowledge-related deliberations, but seem to be diving straight to the very fundamentals of the balance between the general public’s security and the individual’s rights. The continuous calls for Human Rights organizations to limit their blanket approach and maybe consider some exceptions where it might be necessary usually arise whenever no- knocks are applied excessively or abused. 3 Gunawan, Yordan, Amarta Yasyhini Ilka Haque, and Paul Atagamen Aidonojie. “Police Brutality as Human Rights Violation: A Study Case of Black Lives Matter.” Varia Justicia 19, no. 1 (2023): 19-32. 4 Legal and Ethical Concerns Since no-knock warrants hold various legal and ethical issues that are crucial for democracy and the operating procedures of law enforcement, these issues need urgent examination before lawmakers in many nations. Certainly, one of the most significant issues is the chance of violating the Fourth Amendment, which indicates that citizens have the right against the unreasonable search of their body and homes. On the one hand, the Fourth Amendment does permit ex parte warrants similar to no-knock warrants, which depend on the element of surprise. However, the practice of search warrants without prior notification constitutes direct invasion of one’s right to privacy and safety. Since inception, the Fourth Amendment is like a check and a counterbalance between the law enforcement’s duty to investigate the crimes and identify the scapegoats and the need to guard the civil rights of all American citizens.4 Capitalize Fourth Amendment It is the opinion of the critics that with such broad exception the fourth amendment protections may become obsolete and thus law enforcement will be able to avoid doing the Fourth Amendment’s protections easily.5 Additionally, some have held that there may be deficiencies in the standard of reasonableness applied in conditioning no-knock warrants and that such standard could not be constant to the Fourth Amendment principles. Furthermore, on top of these concerns, the misuse of deadly force on multiple occasions during the execution of no-knock warrants calls into question the ethical issues involving their use. Concerns about the role of technological advancements in the justice system intensifies with the possibility of erroneous information causing labels inaccuracies for people under arrest, who 4 Rutledge, Njeri Mathis. “Real Justice for Breonna: Reenvisioning Knock-and-Announce.” Sw. L. Rev. 50 (2020): 419. 5 Motley Jr, Robert O., and Christopher Baidoo. “Racism and Accountable Policing for Black Adults in the United States.” In Encyclopedia of Social Work. 2023. 5 can undergo wrong, and sometimes cruel, forfeit procedures. Moreover, limiting accountability instruments to instances of no-knock warrants misuse and abuse that law enforcement practices could be perceived as unethical in reference. As the complicated matters of the Fourth Amendment are being applied to the challenges faced by society, the landmark cases where the Fourth Amendment has been obligated on the search and seizure warrants without announcement serve as necessary reference points to appraise the legal and ethical implications of their use. These cases become a pathway to studies that take us down the history of the relationship between courts and individual rights, and the balance between public safety and civil liberties. Historical Context and Legal Precedents Many landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases have served the purpose of developing the law around the issuance of no-knock warrants and resolving the main Fourth Amendment violation. One of the decisions, Katz v United States (1967), was the landmark ruling which went far beyond the physical invasion of privacy by adding the right to privacy in line with the Fourth Amendment. In this ruling a test of “reasonable expectation” was established, which then formed the core of constitutionality judging government’s searches and seizures. Katz thus paved the way for the question of how much privacy should be respected and the implications of search warrants, especially no-knock warrants that result in the invasion of houses6. Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) in turn made even more fences on this judicial trend concerning gradual evolution of no-knock warrant issuance under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause (“knock-and-announce” principle). The establishment of the rule of the Court affirmed the position that whereas the knock-and-announce rule is a part of the Fourth Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2 (Supreme Court of the United States December 18, 1967, Decided ), available at See Bluebook https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItefor proper m:3S4X-FS40-003B-S29Y-00000-00&context=1516831. citation format. 6 6 Amendment protection, still exceptions may be warranted in some scenarios, such as one when a Each law enforcement agent faces an imminent danger from a suspect or a risk of evidence destruction sentence or when fleeing of the suspect to hide is suspected. With these exceptions the Courts have applauded the ability it presented to law enforcement agencies in executing their powers, but also highlighted the need to give vain importance to balancing an individual’s privacy rights while carrying out their duties7. Another significant judgment was announced in the case Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) where the Supreme Court further refined the application criteria of no-knock raids thus emphasizing that every situation should be assessed individually and not a single exception be Italicize case names normally applied to all the cases8. With Wilson as a firm basis for those principles, the court decided that a valid reason for conducting a no-knock operation was if there was a high probability the notice would pose a danger, be useless or result in evidence destruction. Nevertheless, the court’s ruling did not dictate that there be an exception in all drug Use past tense cases, but instead points to the necessity of assessing the particularities of every specific legal case.9 Recognizing the guidance supplied by these leading cases, there still remains a need to prove these warrants unconstitutional due to their functionality. Although the legal precursors do provide definitive guidelines on the only situations where no-knock entries are allowed as a last resort, practical application has still given rise to substantial constitutional concerns, making it Wilson v. Arkansas, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-5707 (last visited Mar 10, 2024). 7 Richards v. Wisconsin, 519 U.S. 1052, 117 S. Ct. 679, 136 L. Ed. 2d 604, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 53, 65 U.S.L.W. 3461, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 119, 97 Daily Journal DAR 182 (Supreme Court of the United States January 3, 1997, Decided ), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentIte m:3S65-J2Y0-003B-R4DK-00000-00&context=1516831. 9 Mordechai-Strongin, Ben. “Giving the Fourth Amendment meaning: creating an adversarial warrant proceeding to protect from unreasonable searches and seizures.” U. Mich. JL Reform 56 (2022): 951. 8 here should have a citation. 7 necessary for there to be more scrutiny and assessment in order to ensure that individual rights are in accordance with the nature and the need for law enforcement. Warrant Executions Law enforcement officers must carefully take into account various pertinent aspects when determining the logistics of a no-knock warrant to ensure a successful and legal execution. The most important element of this procedure is the principle of reasonability that says that the execution of the search warrant cannot violate the reasonable expectations of privacy. While the `knock and announce` policy seeks to address the issue of giving targets the chance to respond, the no-knock warrants gives law enforcement officers the element of surprise.10 This inconsistency between the knock-and-annouce requierments and no-knock benefits creates the dilemma of reconciling the obstacles law enforcement and civilians face with the constitutional standards. Additionally, the circumstances which are immediate and cannot be postponed are more difficult to fulfil than a knock notification warrant. However, the tactics that the police can use in of? such scenarios, including imminent hazard or evidence destruction have to be judged carefully to comply with constitutional standards. In addition to this, the possible pitfalls of misinformation or incorrectness in the proceedings of issuing the warrant or executing it leads to the privilege of deprivation of the citizens’ homes and possible violation of their Fourth Amendment Awkward sentence here. rights.11 Consequently, law enforcement agencies need to be vigilant of the authority given to 10 Gunawan, Yordan, Amarta Yasyhini Ilka Haque, and Paul Atagamen Aidonojie. “Police Brutality as Human Rights Violation: A Study Case of Black Lives Matter.” Varia Justicia 19, no. 1 (2023): 19-32. 11 Rutledge, Njeri Mathis. “Real Justice for Breonna: Reenvisioning Knock-and-Announce.” Sw. L. Rev. 50 (2020): 419. 8 them under the notion of reasonableness, urgency, and accuracy, otherwise, it may undermine the entire process of warrant issuance and lead to a constitution violation. Knock-and-announce rule In 2020 Congress discussed altering no-knock warrants and law enforcement responses to protests at the federal, state, and municipal levels. The Congressional Research Service found law enforcement’s identification techniques during warrant executions concerning. At that time there was no federal statute requiring officers to identify themselves or display their badges during public acts, unlike certain states12. Critics say this lack of uniformity calls into doubt for law enforcement’s Fourth Amendment obligation to identify themselves during warrant executions. They argue that no-knock warrants should not be an exception to the knock-and-announce requirement, highlighting the necessity for law enforcement accountability and openness.13 Congress believes that Fourth Amendment compliance is necessary to maintain law enforcement confidence and accountability, hence officers must identify themselves during warrant executions. Despite exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement, mandating officer identification restores balance and protects constitutional rights. Congress wants standardized identification techniques across all law enforcement agencies to address concerns about power abuses and rights violations and improve criminal justice accountability and integrity14. Berris, P. and Foster, M. (2020 June 23). “No-knock” Warrants and Other Law Enforcement Identification Considerations. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10499 12 13 Harmon, Rachel. “Law and Orders.” Columbia Law Review 123, no. 4 (2023): 943-1016. 14 Id at 12. 9 The case of Breonna Taylor started a nationwide discussion within legal and societal of? circles about the practice pf no-knock warrants, with focus on how entry to premises with use of warrants could be done and the use of force engaged. Taylor was the unfortunate casualty that happened while police served a narcotics search warrant for her apartment, part of an ongoing police investigation. The very center of the discussion were the reports of the policemen, respectively, that stated that they did or did not announce themselves before arriving to the house and entering. By these we can tell, if the police personnel followed the required procedures or not, when executing the warrant they had. Such a disparity raises important questions regarding the rule of law, i.e., whether adequate measures have been taken towards compliance with legislative processes and the prior amendment’s stipulation that searches and seizures be subject to reasonable procedures. The matter stands out as a representation for the complicated aspects concerning the use of no-knock warrants and underlines the necessity for proper evaluation of all law enforcement officers to promote accountability and protection of the constitutional rights for individuals. When police officials executed search warrant at the home of Breonna Taylor, she was shot lethally by the officers. The officers claimed precedent as Walker (Taylor’s boyfriend) was the one who fired first at them, justifying their use of deadly force. On the other hand, Walker described his actions as options taken in self-defense that he thought the officers might have been intruders. This incident, however, prompts legal questions on how officers apply force, with such action being subject to strict legal standards, at what point are officers’ actions unnecessary force or perceived to be reasonable, based on the prevailing circumstances.15 Primarily, in this inquiry, Motley Jr, Robert O., and Christopher Baidoo. “Racism and Accountable Policing for Black Adults in the United States.” In Encyclopedia of Social Work. 2023. 15 Citations? 10 society has addressed the question of whether the officers’ response was justified on that day This gets into an given the situation. Ultimately this case only reinforces the complex multi-faceted nature of theexcessive use of force analysis – ambiguity and justification of law enforcement’s resort to deadly force in situations of conflict beyond the and high-stress encounters where the admissibility of multiple narratives is complicated. scope of your research. After Breonna Taylor’s death, a grand jury considered charging the officers involved. However, the grand jury’s failure to prosecute the officers for Taylor’s killing generated public outcry and spurred calls for police accountability and structural reform. The decision not to press charges for Taylor’s death exacerbated police misconduct and cast doubt on the criminal justice system’s impartiality. The proceedings were criticized for a lack of accountability and transparency, prompting calls for stronger law enforcement oversight and structural changes to address chronic racial injustice and police violence.16 The grand jury’s finding sparked a national conversation about police accountability and highlighted the need for fundamental reforms to ensure justice, equality, and accountability in law enforcement. A suggested change was prohibiting or restricting the usage of the no-knock warrants, mandating strict guidelines for the use of force by law enforcement, and enhancing the supervision instruments which inspect misuse of force accusations. Above it there is a discussion that more system transparency is needed and access to the grand jury transcripts and evidence. Breonna Taylor’s case demonstrates the fundamental legal problems of search and ultimately seizure duo, the right use of force by law enforcement, and the responsibility in 16 Gunawan, Yordan, Amarta Yasyhini Ilka Haque, and Paul Atagamen Aidonojie. “Police Brutality as Human Rights Violation: A Study Case of Black Lives Matter.” Varia Justicia 19, no. 1 (2023): 19-32. Citations? 11 officer-involved officers involved shootings. Though the court battle is over, the case is still a benchmark for having in-depth discourses about significant reforms that address the systemic complications within the criminal justice system.17 After the death of Breonna Taylor, another tragedy would strike and challenge Fourth Amendment safeguards. The case of Amir Locke increased the possibility of violent interactions and raised more doubts about “reasonable” search warrant executions. The death of Amir Locke highlighted the issue of no-knock warrants, as well as the many legal implications of such warrants, making discussions and disagreements about these issues even more frequent. Is further discussion of this case warranted here? Reform On February 2, 2021, Minneapolis police were executing a no-knock search warrant during a homicide investigation. Locke was not a suspect or the subject of the warrant directly and was sleeping on a couch in his cousin’s apartment when law enforcement officers broke down the door. The officers were allowed to enter the dwelling without announcing their presence according to the provisions of the no-knock warrant. Body camera footage revealed how Locke, who was carrying a pistol in the pocket and reacted to the sudden entrance of the officers, appeared to be startled and confused18. His death opened up a discussion surrounding the constitutionality and ethics of no-knock warrant provisions and a retaliatory use of force by law enforcers. 17 Dunman, L. Joe. “Warrant Nullification.” W. Va. L. Rev. 124 (2021): 479. Katherine Macfarlane*, ARTICLE: Section 1983 Dealmaking, 97 Tul. L. Rev. 1 , (November, 2022), available at https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id= urn:contentItem:678P-2W61-JFKM-649G-00000-00&context=1516831. 18 12 In response to constitutional concerns about no-knock warrants, many reform ideas have developed to balance law enforcement objectives and individual rights. One alternative is state and municipal legislative action to restrict or ban no-knock warrants. These legislative proposals attempt to limit warrant issuance and execution to instances where they are actually essential to safeguard public safety or avoid immediate damage by requiring better explanations. Courts also define reasonable search and seizure, including no-knock warrant criteria. Judicial scrutiny might tighten warrant acquisition and execution standards, protecting constitutional rights. Law enforcement agencies may also limit no-knock warrants to extreme cases to prioritize de-escalation and life. These policy revisions acknowledge the necessity to combine law enforcement goals with constitutional government. Although lives were lost, legislative measures such as Breonna’s Law and Amir Locke’s End Deadly No-Knock Warrants Act have provided reform that can restore the balance between safeguarding civil liberties and obtaining justice. Good work here. You need to provide citation to your work. You might want to expand on the Amir Locke analysis.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.