ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Jan. 10, 2024) – A bill introduced in the Maryland House seeks to ban “no-knock” warrants, directly challenging Supreme Court precedents that enable their widespread use. If passed, the law would set a foundation for states to nullify federal standards that have facilitated such raids for decades.
Del. Gabriel Acevero filed House Bill 255 (HB255). Under the proposed law, a search warrant could not “authorize a law enforcement officer executing the warrant to enter a building, an apartment, a premises, or a place to be searched without first announcing the law enforcement officer’s purpose and authority.”
Before executing a search warrant, police would be required to “give notice reasonably calculated to alert any occupants” and allow at least 20 seconds for a response. The proposed law would also require police officers to execute warrants between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.
NULLIFYING THE SUPREMES
Without specific state restrictions, police officers typically follow standards established by the Supreme Court. When it comes to no-knock warrants, the SCOTUS has provided police the legal cover they need to use the tactic almost indiscriminately.
However, legislation like HB255 would take a step toward nullifying the Supreme Court opinions that currently provide this legal justification for no-knock raids across the U.S.
In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the 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 circumstances” exceptions if police “fear” violence, if they consider the suspect “a flight risk,” or if officers “fear” the suspect will destroy evidence.
As journalist Radley Balko noted, 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 this opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains exceptionally 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 opinion make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.
A third Supreme Court opinion 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 can still use evidence in court even if they technically gather it illegally.
Were it not for the dubious “incorporation doctrine” 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 providing cover for no-knock raids.
By imposing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states establish standards that exceed Supreme Court limits, nullifying the Court’s opinion in practice and effect.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB255 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
