View Single Post
Old March 10, 2009, 02:31 PM   #37
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
I am sorry but at least in my jurisdiction it takes more than a CI to authorize a No Knock warrant. A CI gets you a target that needs to be watched. Everyone who goes in and out is IDed for a period of time. Licenses are run. Ownership is verified.

So it is not the fast and loose cowboy nonsense you and the Leftist Cato institute are purporting.
Sounds like not all jurisdictions operate like yours.

Also, the Cato Institute is hardly "leftist." Attempting to pidgeonhole a source so that they can be more easily ignored is a time-honored tactic, but before you try to paint the Cato Institute as pushing some liberal agenda I recommend you peruse their website. In particular you should check out their materials on gun policy, economic policy, and environmental policy. They lean libertarian, not liberal. On many issues, they're seen as more conservative than most.

There should certainly be a higher standard for approving such warrants (from the police to the judge) than regular search warrants.
In general, to some extent, there is. Many cases, like the one in Atlanta, involve officers falsifying information to get the warrant. The problem is that in many jurisdictions the only real qualification for getting a warrant certified for a no-knock (or the slightly less dangerous knock-and-announce) is that some form of easily destroyed evidence be involved (drugs, computer data, whatever).
JuanCarlos is offline  
Page generated in 0.03634 seconds with 7 queries