Amir Locke’s death has brought to light again the troubling practice of no knock warrants. https://www.startribune.com/amir-lockes-killing-prompts-new-scrutiny-of-states-no-knock-warrant-laws/600144103/

I am finding it difficult to understand why such a practice is much of an advantage to the cops. In fact, no knock warrants seems like an inherently dangerous practice for all parties involved. When police barge into a person’s home in a country where a significant portion of the population has a gun, the situation is rife for overreaction. Police are nervous to begin with. A no knock warrant is being used for a reason. The cops anticipate a potential difficult situation and hope to avoid that outcome by not knocking. I am assuming that one of the situations they are worried about is potential violence. But what is the reasonable reaction to having your house broken into in the middle of the night? You are waking up to chaos, people screaming, loud noises. You don’t know who is entering your house. You might feel threatened and pull out your weapon.

From the start this is a dangerous situation, how does not knocking give the cops any advantage. Yes, the person is surprised and will have a more difficult time escaping, but when the surprised person has a loaded gun that doesn’t seem all that helpful to me. At the very least, it gives the person a moment or two to wrap their heads around the fact that they have cops at their front door and to do the right thing. If the cops think the person is dangerous or might flee, then the cops should prepare for these situations. To not give this knock is an invitation for disaster as the Amir Locke incident has proven.