I. Introduction: What is a No-Knock Warrant

As part of its “War on Drugs” campaign, the Nixon Administration pushed for the use of no-knock warrants in the early 1970s, but they especially gained traction in the 1980s.[1] A no-knock warrant, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, is “a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises.” [2] Such warrants are granted in situations where following a knock-and-announce rule—where police officers are required to knock on a door and announce their presence before entering—“would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.” [3]

A. Origins: Knock-and-Announce

The concept of a no-knock warrant existed before the warrants themselves officially came to be. In its ruling in Ker v. California (1963), the United States Supreme Court upheld the possession of marijuana convictions of George and Diane Ker, whose apartment was entered by police without announced entry. The rationale behind this holding was that the police were justified in bypassing the “knock and announce” rule because of exigent circumstances that existed, specifically the risk of evidence being destroyed. [4] 

After this decision, with Nixon’s push for the use of no-knock warrants for drug raids, the use of no-knock warrants began to grow. Candice Norwood, writing for PBS NewsHour, in “The War on Drugs Gave Rise to 'No-Knock' Warrants. Breonna Taylor's Death Could End Them,” tells us that, “[d]ata collected by Kraska shows that municipal police and sheriffs' departments used no-knock or quick-knock warrants about 1,500 times in the early 1980s, but that number rose to about 40,000 times per year by 2000, he said. In 2010, Kraska estimated 60,000-70,000 no-knock or quick-knock raids were conducted by local police annually.” [5] This estimate also includes quick-knock entries, which are entries where the police knock-and-announce but do not have to wait very long before entering forcefully. [6] In the span of thirty years, the use of these sorts of entries jumped up by around 58,500 to 68,500, and that jump was not just a coincidence.

As the use of no-knock warrants continued to grow, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995), holding that the “knock-and-announce” rule is part of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness inquiry, but permitting exceptions for “countervailing law enforcement interests.” Among these are, “the threat of physical harm to police, the fact that an officer is pursuing a recently escaped arrestee, and the existence of reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given.” Despite naming specific examples of situations where unannounced entry by police officers is justified, the Supreme Court made room for lower courts to determine what qualifies as “relevant countervailing factors.” [7] 

Following this decision, in Richards v. Wisconsin (1997), the Supreme Court importantly held that the Fourth Amendment does not allow a “blanket exception” to the knock-and-announce rule for narcotics cases, but it still made room for no-knock entries. This holding, in line with Wilson v. Arkansas, explains that under particular circumstances, a no-knock entry is justified and that “the officers' decision to enter the room must be evaluated as of the time of entry.” Just as in Wilson v. Arkansas, the Court again leaves it up to lower court judges to determine what qualifies as a “reasonable suspicion.” [8] 

It is important to note that in this case, before going to the motel room of Steiney Richards, the police had tried and failed to obtain advanced approval for no-knock entry because, according to the majority opinion, police “did not have evidence sufficient, in the judgment of the Magistrate, to justify a no-knock warrant.” In attempting to execute the warrant, police had a reasonable suspicion that Richards would attempt to dispose of the narcotics in his hotel room because of his “strange behavior,” which was his quick shutting of the door of his room upon seeing uniformed officers outside of it. Despite not having had advanced approval, the Court again allowed for an in-the-moment decision not to follow knock-and-announce rules prior to forced entry. [9]

Together, Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin create a legal framework for no-knock warrants and entries, allowing police to make these decisions not to announce entry at the time of executing their warrants, and effectively giving them broad discretion when it comes to when they can neglect knock-and-announce rules through the reasonable suspicion standard created.

B. Standards Applied: Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

When it comes to no-knock warrants or entries, there are two different standards that could be met to determine whether or not following the knock-and-announce rule would lead to a dangerous situation or the disposal of evidence. These standards are Probable Cause, which is used at the warrant stage, and Reasonable Suspicion, which is used at the time of entry. According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute,

In narcotics cases, magistrates are authorized to issue “no-knock” warrants if they find there is probable cause to believe (1) the property sought may, and if notice is given, will be easily and quickly destroyed or (2) giving notice will endanger the life or safety of the executing officer or another person. [10]

The distinction between probable cause and reasonable suspicion standards makes it so that, even without having met a probable cause standard for a no-knock warrant during the warrant stage, police officers can still execute a no-knock entry. This is in situations where, by the discretion of the police officers—at the moment of executing the warrant—they believe they have met the reasonable suspicion standard.

When it comes to an officer’s decision of whether or not to knock and announce before entry, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that they only need to meet a reasonable suspicion standard. In United States v. Ramirez (1998), the court was asked to determine whether or not police are held to a higher standard under the Fourth Amendment than the test in Richards v. Wisconsin when a “no-knock” entry results in destruction of property. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not hold officers to a higher standard, but that when there is “excessive or unnecessary” destruction, it may violate the Fourth Amendment, “even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not subject to suppression.” [11]

II. The Exclusionary Rule and Lack Thereof

The exclusionary rule, according to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, “prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution,” in a trial. Effectively, this rule follows the precedents set in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). [12] Relevant to the issue of no-knock warrants, Mapp v. Ohio held that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure, which would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, should be excluded from trial. [13]

  The United States Supreme Court provided an exception to this exclusionary rule for no-knock or quick-knock entries in Hudson v. Michigan (2006). In this case in particular, the police had announced their presence, but had nonetheless violated the knock-and-announce rule by only waiting “three to five seconds” prior to entering Hudson’s home. In this 5-4 decision, the Court held that even when police violate the knock-and-announce rule, evidence does not need to be excluded from trial. The rationale behind this ruling was that “the knock-and-announce rule has never protected (...) one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant,” in turn, making the exclusionary rule inapplicable because this interest has “nothing to do with the seizure of the 

evidence.” [14] Despite the fact that this was not a no-knock entry case, the precedent set by Hudson v. Michigan applies to any violations of the knock-and-announce rule, including no-knock entries when there is reasonable suspicion. In this way, the Court, to a degree, diminished the value of following the knock-and-announce rule by making it so that, even when it is violated, there are limited legal consequences.

III. Protections for Civilians?

No-knock warrants do have value in both preventing the destruction of evidence and helping maintain safety, but sometimes they could cause more harm than good. Candice Norwood, in “The War on Drugs, Gave Rise to 'No-Knock' Warrants. Breonna Taylor's Death Could End Them,” writing for PBS NewsHour, tells us that,

In 2014, police executing a search warrant in Georgia threw a flash grenade into a room with a 19-month-old child. The child had to be put in a medically induced coma as a result of his injuries. In 2010, a police officer shot and killed a 7-year-old girl while raiding a Detroit apartment. Neither case resulted in criminal convictions for the officers involved. The legal precedent favoring police makes civil lawsuits difficult to win, experts told the NewsHour. [15]

These cases are only two among many heartbreaking stories, including the more well-known case of Breonna Taylor. In 2020, while living with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, police entered their home with the use of a battering ram while executing a no-knock warrant to search for narcotics. Because Walker believed that his home was being broken into, he fired his firearm at the police, who returned fire. In doing so, the police shot and killed Breonna Taylor. The police found no evidence of narcotics in the home. [16]

Breonna Taylor’s death sparked immense public outrage, but despite her case and many others, the precedents that allow no-knock entries and raids to exist and minimize their legal consequences still stand. In some states, no-knock warrants have been banned, yet federal law enforcement is still able to continue their use in those states, making it so that these bans are only limitations on who can use no-knock warrants. [17]

IV. Conclusion

Much of the rationale behind allowing no-knock entries and warrants, as well as limiting the legal consequences of not following knock-and-announce rules, is that sometimes following 

these rules is dangerous. This rationale stands even though there have been numerous cases where no-knock or quick-knock entries have resulted in unnecessary injuries and deaths.

These cases make it clear that the standards the Courts have established are not perfect. They provide police officers with broad discretion and limited consequences when it comes to deciding whether or not to follow knock-and-announce rules, even in cases where they failed to meet a probable cause standard while obtaining a warrant. These precedents show the value of no-knock entries and create restrictions for their use, but these restrictions are broad, the consequences faced by officers are limited, and the numerous injuries and deaths that resulted from no-knock entries raise concerns about their ability to protect individuals.

[1] Kan, Courtney, Nicole Dungca, and Jenn Abelson. 2022. “What to Know about No-Knock Warrants.” Washington Post. April 6, 2022.

[2] Carlson, David. 2015. “No-Knock Warrant.” LII / Legal Information Institute. June 3, 2015.

[3] Ibid

[4] United States Supreme Court. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963)

[5] Norwood, Candice. 2020. “The War on Drugs Gave Rise to ‘No-Knock’ Warrants. Breonna Taylor’s Death Could End Them.” PBS NewsHour. June 12, 2020.

[6] “Banning No-Knock and Quick Knock Warrants Is the Only Way to Prevent More Tragic Killings | ACS.” 2022. American Constitution Society. March 11, 2022.

[7] United States Supreme Court. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995)

[8] United States Supreme Court. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997)

[9] Ibid

[10] Carlson, David. 2015. “No-Knock Warrant.” LII / Legal Information Institute. June 3, 2015.

[11] United States Supreme Court. United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (1998)

[12] Cornell Law School. 2022. “Exclusionary Rule.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. 2022. 

[13] United States Supreme Court. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

[14] United States Supreme Court. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 US 586 (2006)

[15] Norwood, Candice. 2020. “The War on Drugs Gave Rise to ‘No-Knock’ Warrants. Breonna Taylor’s Death Could End Them.” PBS NewsHour. June 12, 2020.

[16] Biscontini, Tyler. 2020. “Shooting of Breonna Taylor | EBSCO.” EBSCO Information Services, Inc.

[17] Carlson, David. 2015. “No-Knock Warrant.” LII / Legal Information Institute. June 3, 2015.