Knock Knock, Who’s There?

Rachel Ferguson and Marcus Witcher’s claim (“Black Gun Rights Matter,” April 18) that no-knock warrants threaten Second Amendment rights is without foundation in law or common sense. There is no constitutional right to resist the police, much less to shoot them when they are carrying out their lawful duties, such as executing a search warrant. This is the case whether the police announce their presence before entering, as is preferred under the Fourth Amendment, or enter with a no-knock warrant, which is permissible under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) and Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to forgo pre-entry announcements if, for instance, evidence would probably be destroyed (e.g., illegal drugs flushed down a toilet) or the police would likely be endangered if they identified themselves.

Search-warrant executions in the residences of violent offenders, such as drug dealers, are fraught whether the police identify themselves before entry or not. A seven-year survey (2010–16) by the New York Times found that 47 civilians and five officers died during knock-and-announce searches, while 31 civilians and eight officers died during no-knock searches. Yet the police are duty-bound to conduct such searches regardless of the risks. Adding the possibility of Second Amendment litigation to these scenarios is illogical and serves no useful public purpose.

Barry Latzer, Emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Rachel Ferguson and Marcus Witcher respond: In “Black Gun Rights Matter,” we challenged conservatives to be protective of Second Amendment rights when citizens are interacting with police. After all, Amir Locke (like Andrew Scott in Florida and BouBou Phonesavanh in Georgia) was not the subject of the law-enforcement warrant at issue. But even those who are will operate based on their right to self-defense if they have no idea that they’re dealing with police. All of these cases demonstrate the high risk of no-knock warrants: mistaken addresses, unreliable informants, or the likelihood of guests on the premises. While police may prefer the speed and surprise provided by a no-knock entry, there may also be better alternatives.

Contra Mr. Latzer’s implication, we never suggested “Second Amendment litigation.” Botched no-knock raids would be addressed under the rubric of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, not the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Still, it’s the duty of law enforcement to think in terms of reasonable force; that someone is shot in response to exercising the legal right to armed self-defense affects that assessment. If we lived in a society in which firearms were forbidden, police tactics would be very different, but we do not. Police should take into account the risk, both to themselves and to those on the premises, when requesting a no-knock warrant and treat it as a tactic of last resort by considering other, potentially less hazardous alternatives.

We reject the notion that challenging police tactics, policies, or prerogatives is necessarily anti-police. Good policies and careful tactical assessments protect both police and community members, increasing both effectiveness and trust.

Correction: “Black Gun Rights Matter” stated that the apartment police entered with a no-knock warrant belonged to Amir Locke. In fact, although Locke was in the apartment, it was not his.