Minnesota Bills Would Ban No-Knock Warrants

The Ultimate Managed Hosting Platform
Fight Censorship, Share This Post!

SAINT PAUL, Minn. (Mar. 6, 2023) – A pair of bills introduced in the Minnesota legislature would ban “no-knock” warrants and raids, and take a step toward nullifying several Supreme Court opinions in practice and effect.

A group of five Democrats led by Rep. Brion Curran (D) introduced House Bill 2290 (HF2290) on Feb. 28. Sen. Clare Oumou Verbeten (D) and four fellow Democrats introduced a companion, Senate Bill 2259 (SF2259),  on Mar. 1. Under the proposed law, police officers would be prohibited from executing a no-knock warrant or seeking a warrant authorizing them to make entry into a residence “without first knocking, announcing his or her office, and giving the occupants a reasonable amount of time, no less than 30 seconds, to respond.”

The bills also include a detailed list of rules police must follow when executing a warrant to ensure the safety of all occupants in a residence.


The passage of HF2290/SF2259 would take a big step toward effectively nullifying and making irrelevant several Supreme Court opinions that give police across the U.S. legal cover for conducting no-knock raids.

In 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 Court 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.


HF2290 was referred to the House Public Safety, Finance, and Policy Committee, and SF2259 was referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. The bills must receive hearings in their respective committees and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

The post Minnesota Bills Would Ban No-Knock Warrants first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

This post has been republished with implied permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Tenth Amendment Center. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

Fight Censorship, Share This Post!

-> Click Here to Read the Original Article <-

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.