The legal debate has been that the use of no-knock warrants violates the Fourth Amendment and creates potential unjustifiable intrusions by overusing and abusing the practice of no-knock warrant executions.
The legal debate has been that the use of no-knock warrants violates the Fourth Amendment and creates potential unjustifiable intrusions by overusing and abusing the practice of no-knock warrant executions. 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 investigation. When investigating no-knock warrants the Fourth Amendment is analyzed because of the ambiguous nature surrounding the execution of such warrants. Law enforcement agencies have often violated Fourth Amendment rights in their pursuit of executing these warrants; in addition, disregarding civil liberties does not render the execution effective. This analysis will delve into Fourth Amendment cases to examine the legal framework concerning no-knock warrants, highlighting instances of violations during their execution and how the courts have addressed these transgressions. Legal and Ethical Concerns There are many legal and ethical concerns regarding the use of no-knock warrants; the potential for Fourth Amendment violations, the exception to the knock-and-announce rule, the standard of reasonableness not adhering to the Fourth Amendment, an increased risk of violence due to the overuse of these warrants, the imbalance between public safety and civil liberties, ineffective warrant executions due to inaccurate information, and the lack of accountability to address the misuse and abuse of these warrants. There is always a chance of Fourth of Amendment violations when dealing with the issuance or exeuction of any warrant. The Fourth of Amendment is what allows law enforcement to execute a warrant without prior notification, but society has argued that this is violates their rights to privacy and security. Historically, the Fourth Amendment has been the balance between law enforcement fulfilling their duties and protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Below are a few landmark cases where the Fourth Amendment was applied to the use of no-knock warrant cases. Historical Context and Legal Precedents Katz v. United States (1967): This landmark decision expanded the Fourth Amendment’s reach to protect individuals’ privacy beyond physical intrusion by the government. It established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, laying the groundwork for subsequent debates on the nature and scope of searches, including the execution of search warrants. Wilson v. Arkansas (1995): This case recognized the “knock-and-announce” principle as part of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. The Supreme Court held that while the knockand-announce rule is part of the Fourth Amendment, exceptions are allowed, such as imminent destruction of evidence, danger to the officers, or a suspect’s attempt to flee. Richards v. Wisconsin (1997): Following Wilson, the Court clarified that no-knock entries could be justified in individual cases based on reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile, or lead to the destruction of evidence. However, the Court rejected a blanket exception for all drug cases, emphasizing case-by-case assessment. After the reasonable expectation of privacy was established, the Court allowed exceptions to the knock-and-announce principle during dangerous situtations, but also clarified that these exceptions are not a blanket exception from the knock-and-annouce requirement. Although, these cases gave clear understanding to how the use of no-knock warrants should operate under the Fourth Amendment, the executions of no-knock warrants have continued to raise significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Warrant Executions How a warrant is executed during a no-knock raid is vital to the success of the execution. The principle of reasonableness, exigent circumstances, and the impact of misinformation should all be considered by law enforcement prior to executing a no-knock warrant. The principle of reasonableness says that a warrant cannot violate the reasonable expectations of privacy. The issue with this is that the use of no-knock warrants contradicts this requirement by allowing officers to enter properties without prior notifications. Knock-and-annouce rule In 2020 Congress members initiated conversations on changing the way Federal, State, and Local law enforcement agencies police no-knock warrants and protest. In an article written by the Congressional Research Service, Congress questioned law enforcement’s identification process during warrant executions. There is no federal law requiring federal officers to identify themselves or show their badges when in public action. Some have argued that the Fourth Amendment does require all law enforcement agencies on any level to identify themselves and that the practice of no-knock warrants does not provide a blanket exception to the knock-and-annouce requirement. Congress members requesting officers identify themselves during warrant executions depicts the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not mandate officer identification or law enforcement agencies are not enforcing the constitutional requirement. With so many exceptions to the knock-and-announce requirement, Congress requesting officer identification would be a step towards creating balance. Constitutional Framework and Reforms In addressing the constitutional concerns surrounding no-knock warrants, several reform proposals have emerged: Legislative Action: Some states and cities have introduced or passed legislation to limit or ban the use of no-knock warrants, requiring clearer justifications for their issuance and execution. Judicial Scrutiny: Courts continue to play a crucial role in defining the boundaries of reasonable search and seizure, potentially imposing stricter standards for the issuance and execution of no-knock warrants. Policy Revisions: Law enforcement agencies may adopt policies that restrict the use of no-knock warrants to exceptional circumstances, emphasizing de-escalation and the protection of life. Accountability and Transparency: There is ongoing concern about the oversight and justification of no-knock warrants, including the adequacy of evidence required to obtain them and the reporting and review mechanisms post-execution. The constitutional framework of no-knock warrants is a dynamic area of law, reflecting ongoing tensions between public safety and individual rights. Supreme Court decisions have established a legal basis for no-knock warrants but also emphasized the need for careful consideration and justification of their use. As societal attitudes toward policing and criminal justice evolve, further legal and legislative developments are likely to refine and redefine the constitutional boundaries of noknock warrants. Case Law Examples: Breonna Taylor’s case sparked significant legal and social debate regarding the use of force by law enforcement officers, the issuance of search warrants, and the accountability of officers involved in fatal incidents. Here’s a legal analysis of some key aspects of the case: Search Warrant Execution: The events leading to Breonna Taylor’s death occurred during the execution of a search warrant at her apartment. The warrant was obtained as part of a narcotics investigation, with officers authorized to conduct a “no-knock” entry. However, conflicting reports emerged regarding whether the officers announced themselves before entering. This raises questions about the legality of the warrant execution and whether proper procedures were followed in accordance with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for reasonable searches and seizures. Use of Force: Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by police officers during the execution of the search warrant. The officers involved claimed they were fired upon first by Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, prompting them to return fire. However, Walker maintains that he fired in self-defense, believing the officers to be intruders. The use of deadly force by law enforcement officers is subject to strict legal standards, including the requirement that it be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The question arises as to whether the officers’ use of force in this case met these legal standards. Grand Jury Proceedings: Following Breonna Taylor’s death, a grand jury was convened to consider potential criminal charges against the officers involved. The decision not to indict the officers directly for Taylor’s death led to public outcry and calls for police accountability and reform. Legal Reforms and Accountability: Breonna Taylor’s case has created demands for legal reforms aimed at increasing police accountability and transparency. Proposed reforms include banning or restricting the use of no-knock warrants, implementing stricter standards for the use of force by law enforcement officers, and improving oversight mechanisms to investigate allegations of police misconduct. Additionally, there have been calls for greater transparency in the criminal justice system, including the release of grand jury transcripts and evidence. Breonna Taylor’s case raises important legal issues concerning search and seizure practices, the use of force by law enforcement officers, and the accountability of officers involved in fatal incidents. While the legal proceedings may have concluded, the case continues to serve as a model for broader discussions and reforms aimed at addressing systemic issues within the criminal justice system. The Amir Locke case is another fatality that brought attention to the use of no-knock warrants and the legal implications surrounding them, sparking discussions about racial injustice, policing practices, and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Background of the Amir Locke Case Amir Locke, a 22-year-old Black man, was shot and killed by police officers in Minneapolis on February 2, 2021. The officers were executing a no-knock search warrant as part of a homicide investigation. Locke was not the subject of the warrant but was sleeping on a couch in his cousin’s apartment, which the police entered without announcing their presence, as allowed under the no-knock warrant provision. Body camera footage showed that Locke, who was holding a gun at the time he was shot, appeared to be reacting to the sudden entry of the officers. His death raised questions about the legality and morality of no-knock warrants and the use of deadly force by law enforcement. Fourth Amendment Concerns: The use of no-knock warrants, as in Locke’s case, challenges the protections provided in the Fourth Amendment by potentially increasing the risk of violent encounters and raising questions about what constitutes “reasonable” execution of a search warrant. The landmark cases like Katz v. United States (1967) and Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) affirmed the necessity of respecting an individual’s privacy and the requirement to knock and announce before entering, except in exigent circumstances. In Locke’s case, the rapid sequence of events, from the officers’ entry to the shooting, raises questions about the adequacy of the threat assessment and the necessity of the force used. Potential Legal Outcomes and Impacts In the wake of Locke’s death, there may be legal actions aimed at holding the involved officers and the police department accountable, including civil rights lawsuits alleging violations of Locke’s Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, this case may influence legislative efforts to reform police practices, specifically regarding the use of no-knock warrants and the standards for the use of deadly force. The Amir Locke case underscores the need for a balance between effective warrant execution and the protection of civil liberties. It highlights the ongoing legal and societal debates regarding no-knock warrants, police use of force, and the systemic issues within law enforcement practices. No-Knock Warrant Reform No-knock warrants have created dangerous situations, leading to unnecessary violence and fatalities. The case of Breonna Taylor and Amir Locke called for legal reforms aimed at restricting or abolishing the use of no-knock warrants. Breonna’s Law is a ban on no-knock warrants that was passed in 2020. This legislation also required law enforcement officers to wear body cameras that must be on and operating five minutes before and after any interaction. Breonna’s Law was Bill HF2290 (State of Minnesota NKW Ban) The Amir Locke End Deadly No-Knock Warrants Act Chiharolynne Yancy Warehouse, Customer Service, and Front Desk Experienced Memphis, TN 38128 [email protected] +1 901 653 9528 I have numerous years dedicated to personal customer service throughout the retail, sales and fulfillment. I have excellent listening skills dedicated to making consumers and clients happy by providing exceptional service. I am looking to pursue a lifetime career in a position that caters to the skills I have learned throughout. Authorized to work in the US for any employer Work Experience Nike Memphis, TN January 2023 to Present Lifting, bending, standing, scanning, refilling fulfillment orders, recon Medical Receptionist CSL Plasma July 2023 to August 2023 1 In compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), assists qualified donors in completing the screening process. The screening procedures includes but are not limited to: assessing the selfadministered health history, answering basic medical questions associated with the donation process, referring donors to medical staff when appropriate and performing health screening procedures such as blood pressure, pulse, weight, temperature. Performs finger stick to obtain sample to obtain donor’s hematocrit and total protein levels. Test Center Administrator uExamS November 2022 to April 2023 Administer tests to test takers, check ID, signature or figure print to identify tester, examine testing activities, check in candidates, examine equipment to make sure it’s ready for use, monitor testers, wand all candidates for extra items, assign lockers, clean stations, follow protocols according to clients’ tests procedures Amazon Fulfillment Associate AMAZON June 2022 to October 2022 Scan, audit, package, and pick merchandise in timely manner using extreme safety protocols. Match items and SKU numbers to correlating items off screen for shipping process, maintain a high rate for optimum shipping processes, stand or walk for 12 hours, paying attention to detail to select appropriate items, pick, pack, repeating repetitive duties in a safe manner, accurate and on time results Remote Customer Service Professional (CSP) Phone/ Chat Arise platform – Memphis, TN February 2022 to August 2022 Taking on different temporary or contract jobs under the Arise program To advise customers, greet, take payments, take on ownership of role, follow best work from home practices, negotiate, worked for Coach program to help customers choose best items, pay on account, search orders, handle returns, appeasements and talk policy with customers who may have had questions. Also worked for Urgently DriverSide program to chat with customers and provide emergency transportation and negotiations for payment from insurance to company, matched details of insurance information to customer’s account to settle payment Front Desk Receptionist Woodspring Suites – Memphis, TN November 2021 to April 2022 Duties include answering phones, taking messages, daily opening and closing audits, room checks, using Jonathon system, check ins, making reservations, clerical work, filing, taking payments, calculating payments, filing ,data entry for customers’ sensitive information, answering, printing paper work of guests, filing according to policies, using copy machine, checking identification for check in purposes, aware of Fair Housing Act, using authorized credit card authorization legal forms, supervision of maintenance, reprogramming key cards, key locks, fax machine knowledgeable of FairHousing Act, Proficient in Word Office ,Word Excel, and Powerpoint , skillful in communication and relaying direct policies to clientele Private Brand Merchandiser Macy’s September 2016 to April 2020 Collecting department merchandise to display in an inviting way to customers, following display logs to recommended practices for sales, advocating the store’s benefits to customers for future sales, opening credit lines, encouraging sales, taking ownership in department, fully accommodating customers to choose appropriate styles of fashion, personal stylist for specific brand Sales Specialist Men’s Suits/Shoes MACY’S April 2014 to September 2016 Duties included promoting sales in the department by calling loyalty program customers, advertising sales and promotions through phone calls, signing clients to special rewards programs and credit card goals, assisting in wardrobe collections and stylist suggestions decisions based off the customers’ requests. Fulfillment of clothing and shoes using Oracle Netsuite database for customer shipping, Auditing shoe and suit inventory, updating prices in system, answering phones, making alterations tickets, scheduling consultations with clients, and keeping a record of returning clients through MYclient data base, preparing visual examples to customers, examining monthly sales and promoting monthly goals for team associates Customer Service Representative LOWE’S February 2013 to July 2013 Duties included opening credit card opportunities for returning customers, greeting and expressing gratitude for client’s visits, helping or advising consumers about products and services for the store, answering phone calls and being alert to client’s needs. Education Bachelor’s of Business Administration in Healthcare Management STRAYER UNIVERSITY 2018 to Present Skills • Customer service (7 years) • Marketing • Branding • Auditing • Public Relations • Fair Housing regulations (1 year) • Microsoft Word (4 years) • Merchandising • Typing • Data entry • Oracle • NetSuite • Salesforce • Pricing Certifications and Licenses driver’s license Assessments Work style: Reliability — Proficient August 2022 Tendency to be reliable, dependable, and act with integrity at work Full results: Proficient Warehouse safety — Proficient November 2022 Using safe practices in a warehouse setting Full results: Proficient Customer focus & orientation — Proficient October 2022 Responding to customer situations with sensitivity Full results: Proficient Front desk agent (hotel) — Proficient October 2021 Selecting hotel rooms based on verbal requests and identifying errors in hotel data Full results: Proficient Customer service — Proficient November 2019 Identifying and resolving common customer issues. Full results: Proficient Administrative assistant/receptionist — Proficient October 2022 Using basic scheduling and organizational skills in an office setting Full results: Proficient Retail customer service — Proficient February 2022 Responding to customer situations in a retail setting Full results: Proficient Supervisory skills: Motivating & assessing employees — Proficient October 2022 Motivating others to achieve objectives and identifying improvements or corrective actions Full results: Proficient Management & leadership skills: Impact & influence — Proficient July 2022 Choosing the most effective strategy to inspire and influence others to meet business objectives Full results: Proficient Customer service — Proficient October 2021 Identifying and resolving common customer issues Full results: Proficient Attention to detail — Proficient November 2022 Identifying differences in materials, following instructions, and detecting details among distracting information Full results: Proficient Work style: Professionalism — Proficient October 2022 Tendency to be accountable, professional, open to feedback, and act with integrity at work Full results: Proficient Indeed Assessments provides skills tests that are not indicative of a license or certification, or continued development in any professional field. 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 The Fourth Amendment was established in response to the constant privacy violations occurring through the use of general warrants. General warrants would be issued without any probable cause which is why the Fourth Amendment had to be established to create the right for one to be secure in their homes1. Today, there are many types of warrants, but the most commonly used are arrest, bench, and search warrants. Although the Fourth Amendment provides safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, there are still exceptions to these safeguards that do not guarantee protections against potential privacy violations2. One exception that has been challenging in protecting an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights is the use of no-knock warrants. No-knock warrants are warrants that allow law enforcement to forcibly enter a property without knocking or announcing their presence first. These warrants are issued by a judge for exceptional circumstances to allow law enforcement the element of surprise in situations where evidence could be destroyed3. Officials have declared that the use of no-knock warrants helps to keep law enforcement and innocent bystanders safe. Still, in some cases, innocent bystanders have suffered the consequences of these warrants. By studying specific cases such as Breonna Taylor, Amir Locke, and Aiyana Stanley-Jones this research will analyze the consequential harm of using no-knock warrants. The primary purpose of this research will be to highlight the critical need for the ban on no-knock warrants, to prevent cases like Breonna Taylor and Amir Locke from reoccurring. There are concerns that the regular use of no-knock warrants has increased the excessive use of force by law enforcement. By addressing these concerns this research will reveal some unethical 1 Levy, L. W. (1999). Origins of the Fourth Amendment. Political Science Quarterly, 114(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657992 2 Temme, L. (2022) The Fourth Amendment-Unreasonable Search and Seizure. FindLaw, https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html 3 Dahl, R. (2022) When Can Police Use No-Knock Warrants, FindLaw, https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/when-can-police-use-no-knock-warrants/ practices used in securing no-knock warrants and the possible Fourth Amendment violations. The purpose of this research seeks to emphasize the importance of safeguarding the protections provided in the Fourth Amendment. 3/15/24, 8:51 PM Legal Analysis Legal Analysis It’s time to change gears again. Now you must begin your legal analytical process. This preliminary effort will inform you as to how best to construct your own analytical work. The Legal Analysis chapter does not have any particular required components. The most coherent way to organize it to simply apply the law (the “Rule” of IRAC) that you identified in the Literature Review to your CLAP topic. Describe the most obvious points of what you discover when you do that. Afterwards, you should interpret what you learn from that application within the context of your specific statement of the research problem and in light of your statement of the research purpose. How well did that fit with the literature that you found and used in Chapter Two? Deliberate about the possible existence of outside limiting factors construing the analytical understanding. Frequently, the analytical results do not completely dovetail with the full CLAP project’s scope. So, you should be sure to also explain what you discover that was surprising or inconsistent with the main portion of your legal analysis. https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/le/enhancedSequenceViewer/154600?url=https%3A%2F%2Ff54cbe36-23a9-4505-85fe-e251f80ec34d.sequences.… 1/1
Purchase answer to see full attachment
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.
