reinitz@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (John Reinitz) (12/28/90)
>mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: ><I prefer to deal with the abuses of authority by depriving law ><enforcement of any rational basis for gratuitous no-knock searches. I have resisted getting involved in this, but I have a question (or two). 1) What is the history of the constitutional status of no-knock searches? 2) What _should_ be the constitutional status of no-knock searches? I understand that as a practicing member of the bar, it is probably unethical for Mike to advise people to obstruct justice. On the other hand, there have been situations discussed here where the use of deadly force against armed intruders into one's home was considered justified. The verbal self-identification of such intruders as police does not seem to me to prove their identity. Police have rational reasons for doing a variety of things, and there are also rational reasons to restrict police power. If law enforcement can function under the restrictions of the Miranda rule, perhaps a similar restriction requiring display of the warrant or at least ID during a search is a justifiable interpretation of the 4th amendment. In short: Is there any thread of scholarship on constitutional law that holds no-knock searches in and of themselves to be unreasonable search and seizure? John Reinitz INTERNET: reinitz@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (212) 854-5952 UUCP: ...!columbia!cubmol!reinitz BITNET: reinitz%cubmol.bio.columbia.edu@cuvmb.bitnet