ST. PAUL, Minn. (Feb. 16, 2022) – A bill introduced in the Minnesota House would ban no-knock warrants in many situations and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.

A coalition of 21 Democrats introduced House Bill 3398 (HF3398) on Feb. 14. Under the proposed law, police could only apply for a no-knock warrant if “there is clear and convincing evidence of a significant, articulable, and imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to an individual confined without the individual’s consent at the location designated in the warrant.” This would include cases such as kidnapping, human trafficking, and false imprisonment.

In the absence of a no-nock warrant, police would be required to “loudly” knock and “loudly and understandably” announce their presence and purpose, and then wait at least 30 seconds prior to entering a premises.

HF3398 was introduced after a Minneapolis SWAT team entered an apartment where Amir Locke was asleep. According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, body camera video showed one of the officers kicking the sofa where Locke was sleeping. Wrapped in a comforter, Locke began moving when he became aware somebody was in the room, and he had a gun. One of the officers shot and killed him. Locke’s parents said he had a license for the firearm.

Nullifying the Supreme Court

The passage of HF3398 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.

In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court established that police must peacefully knock, announce their presence, and allow time for the occupants to open the door before entering a home to serve a warrant. But the Court allowed for “exigent circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.

As journalist Radley Balko notes, police utilized this exception to the fullest extent, “simply declaring in search warrant affidavits that all drug dealers are a threat to dispose of evidence, flee or assault the officers at the door.”

The SCOTUS eliminated this blanket exception in Richards v. Wisconsin  (1997) requiring police to show why a specific individual is a threat to dispose of evidence, commit an act of violence or flee from police. But even with the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains low.

“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” [Emphasis added]

Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low legal bar to meet. Through this exception, police can justify no-knock entry on any warrant application. In effect, the parameters in the SCOTUS ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.

A third Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminated the consequences for violating the “knock and announce” requirement even without a no-knock warrant. In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), the High Court held that evidence seized in violation of knock and announce was not subject to the exclusionary rule. In other words, police could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.

Significantly, were it not for the dubious “incorporation doctrine” made up by the Supreme Court based on the 14th Amendment that purportedly empowers the federal government to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, these cases would have never gone to federal court and we wouldn’t have these blanket rules.

Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.


HF3398 is now in the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee. It is scheduled for a hearing and possible vote on Tue, Feb. 22. The bill must pass the committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Supporters of the bill who live in Minnesota should CALL all members of the committee – be firm, but polite – urge a YES vote on HF3398. Contact info here.

Mike Maharrey

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.