COLUMBIA, S.C. (Dec. 14, 2020) – A bill prefiled in the South Carolina House for the 2021 legislative session would ban “no-knock” warrants and effectively nullify several Supreme Court opinions.
A coalition of 30 Democrats and one Republican filed House Bill 3089 (H3089) on Dec. 9. The legislation would require any law enforcement officer executing a warrant in the state to physically knock and announce himself and wait a minimum of fifteen seconds to allow the occupants of the home to respond and open the door before forcibly entering a home. It would also require police executing a warrant to wear a body-camera and to be in uniform or wearing clothing that makes him clearly and immediately identifiable as a law enforcement officer.
Law enforcement officers violating the law would be suspended from duty and their law enforcement certification would be subject to revocation. The proposed law would also create a cause of action to sue police officers for a violation of the law.
Nullifying the Supreme Court
Passage of H3089 would effectively nullify and make irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.
n the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme 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 circumstance” exceptions if police fear violence, if the suspect is a flight risk, or if officers fear the suspect will destroy evidence.
As journalist Radley Balko notes, 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 the opinion, the bar for obtaining a no-knock warrant remains 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 ruling make no-knock the norm instead of the exception.
A third Supreme Court ruling 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 could still use the evidence in court even though they technically gathered it illegally.
Significantly, were it not for the dubious “incorporation doctrine” made up by the Supreme Crout based on the 14th Amendment 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.
Without specific restrictions from the state, police officers generally operate within the parameters set by the High Court. By passing restrictions on no-knock warrants, states set standards that go beyond the Supreme Court limits and in effect, nullify the SCOTUS opinion.
WHAT’S NEXT
H3089 will be officially introduced when the South Carolina legislature convenes for the 2021 session on Jan. 12. It will be referred to the House Committee on Judiciary where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
The post South Carolina Bill Would Ban “No-Knock” Warrants first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center Blog.
The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power. Visit https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/