Expert says ‘no-knock’ warrant not justified
A national authority on search and seizure law says the no-knock warrant that Louisville, Ky., police obtained for Breonna Taylor’s apartment should not have been issued because there was no evidence justifying it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said judges may allow police to search without knocking when they have a reasonable suspicion that under the “particular circumstances” of a case, the targets could destroy evidence.
A detective who obtained the warrant for Taylor’s home March 13 said “these drug traffickers have a history of attempting to destroy evidence, have cameras on the location that compromise detectives once an approach to the dwelling is made, and have a history of fleeing.”
But Christopher Slobogin, director of Vanderbilt University’s Criminal Justice Program, said, “unless the police had reason to believe this particular house had cameras, and explained that reason to the judge, a no-knock warrant would be improper. “Otherwise, police would never need to knock and announce for any search related to drug dealing, with consequences like the one we have in this case.”
Taylor’s apartment did not have cameras, nor were drugs found.
Taylor was killed by police after her boyfriend, thinking they were being robbed, fired a shot in the apartment.
Louisville police said they knocked and introduced themselves, even with a no-knock warrant, but witnesses have disputed that.
Lexington attorney Mark Wohlander, a former FBI agent, said “boilerplate” language cited by Detective Joshua Jaynes did not justify a no-knock search. “I don’t know how this ever cleared a supervisor’s desk,” he said.
But two Louisville defense attorneys, both former prosecutors, said they think the judge’s issuance of the warrant was permissible. Brian Butler said warrants are given based on probable cause, a standard requiring minimal evidence. Kent Wicker said courts have upheld issuing such warrants based on allegations of what “drug dealers do.”