No More No-Knock: Simple Reforms That Can Save Lives

Imagine you’re comfortably dozing in bed at your partner’s home in the early hours of the morning. Suddenly, around 6 am, you jerk awake as the sound of loud voices permeates the room and you open your eyes in the semi-darkness to see two police officers with guns drawn and pointed at your face.

While this scenario would naturally terrify anyone, it does not even come close to the worst possible outcome. For Amir Locke, this nightmare came to a much darker end in February of 2022 when Minneapolis police officers shot him in bed in the pre-dawn hours. What exactly was the threat that precipitated the officers to fire? According to the Minneapolis Police Department, Amir reached toward his gun and they felt that they needed to end his life. Yet, Locke maintained a valid gun license and when awakened by an intruder in his home sought to defend himself. In a country where gun ownership remains a legal right, citizens can and will defend themselves with firearms. Waking up to unknown intruders inside one’s home naturally triggers a defensive response.

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, a no-knock warrant is a specific type of warrant that allows officers to enter a home without preannouncing their presence and/or identifying themselves as law enforcement. Magistrate Judges issue these warrants only for the most critical cases: when the suspect may imminently destroy evidence or seriously threaten the safety of officers or civilians. Amir Locke, fast asleep when the raid began, was neither named in the warrant nor actually a suspect in the relevant crime.

Amir Locke is not the first police fatality as a result of a no-knock warrant. An investigation by the Washington Post found that police killed at least 22 victims during no-knock raids since 2015, including the notorious case of Breonna Taylor. Although supporters contended that no-knock warrants may help officers safeguard evidence and protect civilians, numerous studies have shown that this practice endangers citizens and may in fact increase the danger officers face. Legal scholar Brian Dolan noted that of the 94 fatal incidents involving no-knock warrants between 2010 and 2016, police officers made up approximately 1 in 7 victims, much higher than that of typical warrant searches. The New York Times corroborated his investigation and outlined the dangerous consequences of the increased danger to police. The report highlighted a particularly heartbreaking case where police threw a flashbang grenade into a child’s playpen because they feared for their own safety. These incidents far exceed the failings of the “a few bad apples” narrative, but rather represent a systemic failure.

The current state of no-knock warrant system needs more than cursory tweaks, but rather an overhaul of the core mechanics. To get a search warrant, an officer must first submit an affidavit, a written statement sent to the court to request a search and explain their reasons for the search. A judge or a magistrate will read the affidavit and examine the reasons, including why the “no-knock” approach is necessary. Should the request be approved, the judge will issue a warrant that has the suspect’s name and address. When the search is completed, the officer will also have to return a report to the court listing all the evidence discovered during the search.

While this seems like a straightforward and logical process, the simplicity of that explanation obscures the broken incentives and loopholes. According to Washington Post journalists Courtney Kan, Nicole Dungca, and Jenn Abelson, few judges scrutinize the affidavits to consider the necessity of a home search. Typically the evidence for crimes in progress comes from indirect sources, such as tip line phone calls, which can be unreliable. In 2019, an informant spoke to Houston Police Officers about ongoing contraband dealing, specifically heroin, at a private residence. Officers then procured a no-knock warrant and carried out a raid that left two people dead in the home and no heroin was found. Officers frequently “judge shop,” selecting the friendliest jurist for a given type of warrant to improve their chances of receiving the most invasive warrant possible. According to the Washington Post, officers prefer judges with whom they maintain close relationships although they may lack training or experience reviewing these types of warrants. As a result, warrant rejection rates are shockingly low. In Utah, for example, magistrate judges denied less than 2% of all warrant requests.

On top of the questionable standards for warrants overall, no-knock warrants require little additional scrutiny or judicial review. As discussed, these warrants create greater risks for both residents and officers, yet the approval standard requires little more than officers informing judges that they planned to enter without announcing or identifying. Consequently, many no-knock warrants rely solely on officer assessments. Without sufficient standards of proof particularly in the more dangerous situations these warrants precipitate, the results can be devastating as police have often raided the wrong homes, leaving a trail of innocent bystanders in their wake.

In the case of Amir Locke, a stronger standard for no-knock warrant’s may have saved his life. As the Task Force on Policing at the Council on Criminal Justice suggested, “Police raids of occupied premises should be restricted to cases of clear and present danger or imminent threat to life, such as hostage situations, and terrorist activities, and should be backed by verified intelligence from credible sources.” Moreover, police departments across the nation must establish accountability and transparency. Not only should no-knock warrant data be available to the public, but more importantly, departments and prosecutors must hold accountable officers who execute no-knock warrants without a judge’s permission. Additionally, policymakers must establish a credible standard for imminent threat and destruction of evidence and hold magistrate judges to that standard. On top of those steps, policymakers need to consider personal criminal and civil liability for officers and judges that either overstate evidence in front of the court or fail to meet the standard for no-knock warrants.

In recent years, we have witnessed police officers prematurely ending the lives of Amir Locke, Breonna Taylor, and other innocent community members. These extrajudicial killings have sparked public outrage and it is not hard to see why. Reasonable and rigorous processes for warrants, especially no-knock warrants, could have saved their lives and will save more lives in the future.