• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Spotsylvania Sheriff's Department Executes "No-Knock" Warrant

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
While not specifically "open" carry related, there's hardly an issue today that is not more critical to the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense than the continued use of "no-knock" warrants by our law-enforcement agencies.

I know User has always railed against them, and rightly so. There are Virginia citizens sitting in jail today for defending themselves against home invasions conducted under the guise of a "no-knock" warrant.

TFred

Spotsylvania man charged with cocaine possession after raid

"Residents in the Kingswood subdivision area reported hearing a loud explosion-like sound during that time. Carey said the noise was related to the raid."

Reports on social media from the area indicated many nearby residents thought a bomb had gone off. This took place in a fairly dense subdivision, as can be seen here:

Google Maps: 5000 Block of Dorsett Court
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This is not a fairly dense subdivision. Based on the looks of the neighborhood it appears to be a middle or upper middle class neighborhood. Drug dealing appears to quite lucrative. Lucrative to the point that long vacation periods are affordable.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
This is not a fairly dense subdivision. Based on the looks of the neighborhood it appears to be a middle or upper middle class neighborhood. Drug dealing appears to quite lucrative. Lucrative to the point that long vacation periods are affordable.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with no-knock warrants... but if you're really interested, it appears that the warrant was executed at the suspect's parents' home. I don't know if the suspect was living there or not, apparently he is 29 years old. According to the county tax records, the home is 23 years old, just a tad over 3,000 square feet, assessed at $290,000, and was bought newly built by the current owners.

Do those details make the use of no-knock warrants better or worse?

TFred
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
While not specifically "open" carry related, there's hardly an issue today that is not more critical to the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense than the continued use of "no-knock" warrants by our law-enforcement agencies.

I know User has always railed against them, and rightly so. There are Virginia citizens sitting in jail today for defending themselves against home invasions conducted under the guise of a "no-knock" warrant.

TFred

Spotsylvania man charged with cocaine possession after raid

"Residents in the Kingswood subdivision area reported hearing a loud explosion-like sound during that time. Carey said the noise was related to the raid."

Reports on social media from the area indicated many nearby residents thought a bomb had gone off. This took place in a fairly dense subdivision, as can be seen here:

Google Maps: 5000 Block of Dorsett Court
It seemed important for you to quote that fact. And by the way, my comment was tongue in cheek about long vacations
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
There is no legal basis for a no-knock warrant in Virginia. I think under the law that exists, in fact, execution of such a warrant would be a felony. The castle doctrine is good law in Virginia, and what it says is that the cops have to knock, announce themselves, and allow a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to come and open the door peaceably. The alternative is home invasion, also known as burglary.

However, the Fourth Amendment search and seizure rules, as "interpreted" by the Supreme Court say that the evidence seized may be used, even if illegally acquired. This is inconsistent with the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine created with respect to search of one's person. But if they come in on a bad warrant, without a warrant, into the wrong house, etc., or some other trespassory event, and happen to see the cocaine lying on the coffee table, they can still use that for probable cause to search and arrest.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
A cowardly act that should have no place in our society... The nazi's were notorious for such vile actions.. Sneaking around in the wee hours of the morning like murderous criminals and invading someones home is not good police work, it is the action of cowards.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
It seemed important for you to quote that fact. And by the way, my comment was tongue in cheek about long vacations
Well, Virginia is a pretty big state, and there are lots of places in it where even a bomb going off would have little effect on the neighbors. I wanted to include information that demonstrated this was not one of those places. :)

TFred
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
There is no legal basis for a no-knock warrant in Virginia. I think under the law that exists, in fact, execution of such a warrant would be a felony. The castle doctrine is good law in Virginia, and what it says is that the cops have to knock, announce themselves, and allow a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to come and open the door peaceably. The alternative is home invasion, also known as burglary.

However, the Fourth Amendment sarh annd I can't use thiis thhing it's
So how do we get the courts to understand this?

TFred
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So how do we get the courts to understand this?

TFred

Ill venture to reply while we wait for user, when the news outlets stop treating LE as hero's and they start denouncing all violations against citizens by LE as being criminal acts.. Then they shall be held accountable via the court of public opinion..

Also in my humble opinion, the wearing of police uniforms or any form of uniforms should be banned from all court rooms..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
I believe the Hossier state solved the problem in 2012 when their legislature passed and Governor signed legislation that clarified their Castle Doctrine statutes.

While the IN police thought law officer's blood would be flowing freely after passing, it hasn't, and interestingly the 'we are above the law' nonsense of 'opps wrong house' errors have diminished as the officers know the goocd Hoosier citizens might just shoot to defend their home and loved ones.

While not a guarantee of immunity for the citizen, at least their claim of 'I had a reasonable fear for my loved one's life' can be heard in court!
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
So how do we get the courts to understand this?

TFred

A good start would be the legalization of the drugs that are now prohibited and doing away with this so called war on drugs.

Then making people understand that there personnel actions are their responsibility not ours or the governments.

The democrats, socialists, communists, progressives all one and the same have worked very hard in making the government the answer to peoples problems.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
In my opinion, no-knock warrants spits in the face of the founders and the bill of rights. They go against the very essence of the rights of citizen. It has been the premise of American law that it is better for a guilty to get away, then for an innocent to suffer
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
There is no legal basis for a no-knock warrant in Virginia. I think under the law that exists, in fact, execution of such a warrant would be a felony. The castle doctrine is good law in Virginia, and what it says is that the cops have to knock, announce themselves, and allow a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to come and open the door peaceably.

Copy all User. So what does a "no knock" Warrant look like? Does it say "Virginia's Castle Doctrine does not apply to this warrant?"....or does it say the occupant's right to be free from unreasonable seach can be. violated? ... or does it say no knock warrant request granted?

Stuff like this turns civl servants into an occupation force.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I provide this as only one of what I'm sure are likely many more data points available, but it seems to be relevant. Perhaps User can provide some context with regard to the legal situation today.

TFred


JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Johnson v. Commonwealth

213 Va. 102 (1972)

JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 7920.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

June 12, 1972.

Present, Snead, C.J., I'Anson, Carrico, Harrison, Cochran and Harman, JJ.

No knock entry under exigent circumstances approved. When armed with proper warrant to search for drugs, police officers knew door to apartment was protected with two locks and that persons seeking entry were placed under surveillance. They knew that drugs were being stored there and dispensed from the kitchen from a point only 3 to 4 feet from a bathroom where narcotics could be and had been disposed of in the past.

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke. Hon. Ernest W. Ballou, judge presiding.

G. Marshall Mundy, for plaintiff in error.

James E. Kulp, Assistant Attorney General (Andrew P. Miller, Attorney General, on brief), for defendant in error.

HARRISON

HARRISON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

James Edward Johnson was convicted in the court below of possessing marijuana with intent to distribute this drug. We granted him a writ of error limited to a consideration of whether the action of the police officers in failing to announce and identify themselves before forcibly entering defendant's apartment constituted an unreasonable search and seizure.

On January 12, 1971 Roanoke city police officers, armed with a search warrant, entered defendant's apartment by knocking open its door with a sledge hammer. The police did not knock on the door, identify themselves or make any announcement of their presence.

The officers knew from prior investigation that there were two locks on the door; that it was equipped with a peephole which was *103 used by the occupants for surveillance of anyone who knocked on the door; that approximately 3 to 4 feet from the room they intended to enter there was a bathroom furnished with a commode and a shower; and that this room was being used for the distribution of narcotics. The officers further knew from experience, and from the arrangement of defendant's apartment, that any marijuana on the premises could be disposed of very rapidly if they had knocked at the door and announced themselves.

Officer G. F. Dyer, of the Roanoke City Vice Squad, testified that he broke down the door because he felt that evidence might be destroyed if he announced his presence prior to entry. When the police entered the apartment they found the defendant sitting at a table on which there were several bags of marijuana, and holding a large bag of marijuana in his lap.

We are not advised of any prior decision by this court considering the validity of a "no knock entry" in the execution of a search warrant. The law in Virginia covering search warrants is found in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia, which prohibits general warrants, and in Code || 19.1-83 through 19.1-89. There is no specific statute relating to "no knock entry" in executing a search warrant. We therefore consider whether an unannounced search is reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. What is a reasonable search is purely a judicial question, and in determining it the court must look to all the circumstances. McClannan Chaplain, 136 Va. 1, 116 S.E. 495 (1923). Also, the absence of statutory authority mandates an examination of common law principles. Code | 1-10.

The defendant's position is that the lawfulness of the search was vitiated by the method of entry into his apartment. He claims that before police officers may resort to a forced entry they must identify themselves and make their purpose known.

The earliest common law decision enunciating the rule of prior notice appears to be Semayne's Case, 5 Coke Rep. 91a, 91b, 11 Eng.Rul.Cas. 629, 77 Eng.Rep. 194, 195 (1603) where it was said:

{"In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party's house, either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the [King's] process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors * * *." *104

The reasons for the requirement of notice of purpose and authority have been said to be that the law abhors unnecessary breaking or destruction of any house, because the dweller in the house would not known the purpose of the person breaking in, unless he were notified, and would have a right to resist seeming aggression on his private property. This general rule has been transferred to the statute books in a majority of the states and in the federal law, and its vitality has been attested by commentators, text writers, law review articles and decisions of federal and state courts. See Miller United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958), Accarino United States, 179 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir. 1949), Announcement in Police Entries, 80 Yale L.J. 139 (1970), Sonnenreich & Ebner, No-Knock and Nonsense, An Alleged Constitutional Problem, 44 St. John's L.Rev. 626 (1970).

However, at least one commentator has questioned the force of Semayne's Case because it involved the execution of a civil warrant. We further observe that the force of the Semayne's admonition against unannounced police entry is lessened by use of the precatory language that the sheriff "ought" to announce his presence. 44 St. John's L.Rev. at 627-29.

Some judicial decisions have granted exceptions and qualifications even in states which have statutes requiring police announcements before entry. These exceptions have been made because of exigent circumstances and where the facts make it evident that the officers' purpose is known, or where announcement might frustrate the arrest, increase the peril of the arresting officer or permit the destruction of evidence. See State Clarke, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1971); Scull State, 122 Ga.App. 696, 178 S.E.2d 720 (1970); State Linder, 291 Minn. 217, 190 N.W.2d 91 (1971); People Lujan, 484 P.2d 1238 (Colo. 1971) and the authorities cited therein.

Maryland statutes are also silent on the formalities of the execution of search warrants. In Henson State, 236 Md. 518, 204 A.2d 516 (1964) the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld the validity of unannounced police entry in the execution of a search warrant on the basis of exigent circumstances.

The Congress of the United States has acknowledged the need for surprise entry under certain circumstances and conditions by its passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-513) and the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-358).

Ker California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963) holds that under certain *105 circumstances an unannounced police search is constitutionally permissible. The decision was based on judicially engrafted exceptions to California statutes which required police officers to demand admittance and explain their presence before breaking into a dwelling place to effect an arrest. 374 U.S. at 37, 38.

Regarding the protection of constitutional rights during unannounced searches, the California Supreme Court in People Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 294 P.2d 6, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 858 (1956) has said:

{"[When] an officer has reasonable cause to enter a dwelling to make an arrest and as an incident to that arrest is authorized to make a reasonable search, his entry and his search are not unreasonable. Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy or dispose of evidence, and no basic constitutional guarantees are violated because an officer succeeds in getting to a place where he is entitled to be more quickly than he would, had he complied with [the statute]." 46 Cal. 2d at 306, 294 P.2d at 9. To the same effect see

State Clarke, supra, 242 So. 2d at 795.

We further believe that the common law should be evaluated in the light of modern technology and the nature of illegal drug traffic in which small, easily disposable quantities of drugs can yield large profits.

In Kaplan, Search and Seizure, A No-Man's Land in the Criminal Law, 49 Cal.L.Rev. 474, 502 (1961) it was said:

{"* * * [It] would seem that the perfection of small firearms and the development of indoor plumbing through which evidence can quickly be destroyed, have made [statutes requiring notice and entry before the use of force to enter] * * * a dangerous anachronism. In many situations today * * *, a rule requiring officers to forfeit the valuable element of surprise seem senseless and dangerous."

Turning to the facts in the instant case, there is abundant evidence to support the Commonwealth's position that the exigencies of the circumstances warranted a rapid entry by the police officers into Johnson's apartment. The police had reliable information that this apartment was a place from which illegal drugs were being dispensed. *106 They knew that the door to the apartment was protected with two locks, and that persons seeking entry were placed under surveillance before being admitted. They knew that drugs were being stored and dispensed from the kitchen and from a point only 3 to 4 feet from the bathroom where there were two receptacles that could have been used to dispose of and destroy evidence.

We hold that under the facts of this case the method of entry used by the police was not unreasonable. It did not offend the standards of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or violate any provision of the Constitution or statutes of Virginia. The evidence seized was properly admitted.

Affirmed.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
In my opinion, no-knock warrants spits in the face of the founders and the bill of rights. They go against the very essence of the rights of citizen. It has been the premise of American law that it is better for a guilty to get away, then for an innocent to suffer
I can, occasionally, wrap my mind around some of the theories as to why 'no knock' warrants were issued in the first place; notably to prevent the desctruction of evidence before it could be collected. That said, with today's technology that's capable of detecting cocain on the average $20 I think NOT finding trace evidence is more of a problem. If there is enough contraban to be worthwhile then the operation is probably more than be flushed down a toilet at a moment's notice.

As for 'avoiding violence'... in my mind most people are More lily to react with violence to a middle-of-the-night storming of their domicile by unknown persons without established bona fides than are likely to just stand aside and let someone ram their way through a locked front door.

I'm reminded of the Branch Davidian debacle, where David Koresh was known to go into town, had been observed going into town while the Fed's surveilled his property and yet it was decided that a frontal assault was the 'right thing to do'.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
No knock raids will now become a topic for discussion in the main stream media due in part to the no-knock raid of Mr. Paul Manafort..

When we hear of No knock raids, we envision drug lords, and real hard ass criminals..

The invasion in the night by law enforcement is in my humble opinion a cowardly act..

The judges and prosecutors and the idiots in uniform that execute such nazi style raids are tyrants to the highest degree..

Staking out a wanted criminal and observing his/her habits should lead to a lawful arrest without violating the sanctity of another citizens home..

**** even Melvin Purvis operated in the day light hours..

Again fear and officer safety is the dividing element.. In my humble opinion, I have no respect for creatures that prey on folks in the middle of the night.. Dracula is a myth, nazi storm troopers are the real evil deal..

No place for nazi storm troopers in our society..

My .02
CCJ
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Subjective is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Probable cause is reasonable grounds for making a search. But, based on what, objectivity or subjectivity?

The fourth amendment is one of the biggest mistakes our Founding Fathers made.

The only way the government should ever be allowed to enter ones home is for an exigent circumstance in preserving loss of life (or bodily harm) of whomever is in the home and that entry is only for that purpose. Any, so called, contraband unrelated to the purpose of preserving of that life shall not be admissible in any court proceeding.

My 1 ½ ¢.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The fourth amendment is one of the biggest mistakes our Founding Fathers made.
I think the problem is that the Fourth and other of the first 10 (along with the "interstate commerce clause", I suppose) were crafted in an era of reasonable people, who for the very most part, shared an interest in reasonable restraints. Such people are distinctly in the minority today. I'm not sure how the Founding Fathers could have foreseen this change and crafted the texts differently to head it off, but it would make for some very interesting discussion in an appropriate venue.

TFred
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
...

True. That's what the Constitution of 1789 said. But the law of Virginia goes much farther back than that - Code, sections 1-200 & 1-201.
Because Virginia is an "English common law state", our law goes back to 1066, the "Norman Conquest"; and whatever the law of England was in 1607 (or the fourth year of the reign of King James I, as the code puts it - the year of the founding of Jamestown), that is the law of Virginia, today, unless "repugnant to" our Constitution or statutory law.

The problem is that most judges are really confused about what being a "common law state" means. In England, there is only one branch of government. Thus, the judiciary has the same power of legal declaration as the legislature, both being delegees of the same sovereign power. A common law court in 1607 England had the power to "discover" new and different law and pronounce that it would be the law henceforth, because that court was making a declaration on the part of the King.

When we created our Constitution, we (the people, acting as a collective sovereign entity) divided our government into three branches with separate and different spheres of power and authority. Thus, there are no "common law courts" in Virginia. Only the legislature can "discover" or make new law. The fact that the substance of English common law has been brought forward as the law of Virginia doesn't have any effect on the procedure dictated by the Constitution.

So, as the law of Virginia was in 1607, "a man's home is his castle, and he has as much right to defend his castle as the king does his own." Semayne's Case, Court of King's Bench, 1603.
Note that this case was decided four years prior to the importation of English common law, and is thus official precedent for Virginia law today. There are two implications of that decision for Virginia law today. One is the right to defend one's home against intruders, in Virginia referred to as "defense of habitation", rather than "the castle doctrine"; and the second is the "knock and announce rule". The agents of the state are required to knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to come to open the door before bursting in. The failure to observe this rule converts the agents into home-invaders, and (as a purely theoretical legal matter) means that they can be shot and killed and that will a justified shooting. The reason I say "purely theoretical legal matter" is not that it has any legal weakness, but the simple fact that if that were to happen, the other agents would shoot the resident, his dog, and probably his wife and kids. "Power", as Chairman Mao famously said, "is a flower that grows from the muzzle of a gun."

Is a "no-knock warrant" thus an exercise in tyranny? Abso-f'ing-lutely. The fact that the U.S. Constitution authorizes "reasonable" searches and seizures does not give a Virginia Court the power to violate Virginia law in stating HOW the search is to be executed. See, those are two entirely different legal issues, which is why the courts never talk about the defects in the method - once the cops are in the house, however they got there, and they see contraband, it's "reasonable" at that point to seize the contraband and search for more. So those cases that legitimize the searches and seizures do not and can not authorize criminal methods of entry, and they don't have the legislative authority to do so.

Before having retired, I'd secretly wished I could have gotten a case in which a homeowner had shot a cop in the exercise of a "no-knock warrant", just so I could make that argument. The whole point of the "castle doctrine" as stated by Lord Justice Coke was to avoid the situation in which a homeowner reacts violently to what reasonably and legitimately appears to him as a home invasion (which is precisely what happened in Semayne's Case, by the way). That's why the "knock and announce rule" was declared to be the law. The Modern Establishment State has responded by the use of overwhelming force so they can destroy the homeonwer, his home, and his family regardless of any resistance. I wished I could have at least had a wrongful death suit. And I doubt if any other attorney has the guts to make that argument if it ever comes up.
 
Top