Appeals court OKs no-knock warrant as perfectly appropriate
Steve Schear
s.schear at comcast.net
Tue Nov 25 10:12:19 PST 2003
>We have recognized that, HN6[]under appropriate exigent circumstances,
>strict compliance with the knock and announce requirement may be excused.
>United States v. Grogins, 163 F.3d 795, 797 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding
>no-knock entry justified where officers had reasonable suspicion that
>entering drug "stash house" would be dangerous and drug dealer frequenting
>house could not be found elsewhere). When the authorities "have a
>reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence ...would
>be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective
>investigation of []crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of the
>evidence," an entry without knocking [*13] is justified. Richards, 520
>U.S. at 394; see also United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 140 L. Ed. 2d
>191, 118 S. Ct. 992 (1998) (upholding no-knock entry where suspect had
>violent past, access to weapons, and vowed not to do "federal time").
So, how does a non-criminal citizen protect themselves against armed home
invaders who break down their front door or crash through a window to gain
entry? Are citizens liable for injuries and deaths to law enforcement
personnel who use such unannounced methods (esp. in the early morning hours)?
I know that there have been cases which determined that its illegal to use
an indiscriminate weapon (e.g., a shotgun tied to a door) to deter such
entries, but what about a discriminate, automated, weapon system? By
coupling night vision optics and a video pickup, image recognition
software, a robotic gimbal and an semi-automatic firearm, such a system
could discriminate forced entry situations from more normal entry means,
target intruders and initiate deterrence. What then?
steve
More information about the Testlist
mailing list