Rand Paul Announces 'Justice for Breonna Taylor Act' Barring No-Knock Warrants

About damned time. For years we have seen the toll of these "no knock / dynamic entry" tactics that have been pulled by authorities and all of the bodies (of people and dogs) that it has caused. Many, many of these raids have happened at the wrong house on sleeping victims that get gunned down while they still do not know what is going on or who is breaking in their home at 3 AM. Lately they have been performing these raids in plain cloths and with no body cams of course. Indiana back in 2012 actually passed a law that allowed you to defend yourself in these cases because it has gotten so bad.

I hope everyone can agree, this is long overdue.


www.foxnews.com...

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced a bill Thursday to end "no-knock" warrants like the one that led to the shooting death of an African-American woman earlier this year.

The Justice for Breonna Taylor Act would prohibit federal law enforcement from forcibly entering a home without announcing their purpose for executing the warrant and their authority. The measure is named after Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT who was fatally shot by Louisville officers on March 13 after they used a battering ram to enter her home.

The officers were executing a drug warrant in search of a male suspect who didn't live in her apartment complex. He had already been detained prior to the warrant being executed.

www.cnn.com...

"After talking with Breonna Taylor's family, I've come to the conclusion that it's long past time to get rid of no-knock warrants," Paul, a Republican, said in a statement. "This bill will effectively end no-knock raids in the United States."

Paul's bill isn't the only effort to limit such warrants. The Louisville Metro Council in Kentucky also passed an ordinance banning no-knock search warrants on Thursday.
The ordinance, which will be known as "Breonna's Law," also regulates the execution of search warrants and the use of body camera equipment during the implementation of all search warrants.

Sounds good to me just based on all the terrible mistakes and deaths that surround it.

This also includes SWATting I assume?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
This also includes SWATting I assume?

By the Feds. Won't affect the people who actually botched the (totally unnecessary) raid.

Rand Paul is virtue signaling with this one ... big time.

ETA: The real problem here is LE overreach. Americans don't need or want to live under a Police State. The people we elected could have abolished these types of practices. Instead, they wait until someone is needlessly killed. If you heard Taylor's boyfriend's voice in the 911 recording ... chilling!!

Want to send a real signal Rand? Prosecute. Round up everyone. Charge #1: Conspiracy (including the judge who signed the murder warrant)!! Do it ... or STFU!!

what's really really sad are the metrics on when these no knock raids actually worked or made a difference.

a reply to: infolurker

This is overdue. The Tuttle case was a hodgepodge of crooked cops, lax laws, allowing no knocks and police incompetence.

Forensic Experts Find 'No Evidence' That Houston Narcs Who Killed Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas Encountered Gunfire As They Entered the House

Yes this is good. It is almost like a duty to warn. With no knocks you are not even giving a person the benefit of the doubt of being able to comply.

And if you are worried about evasion or someone escaping why don;t you surround all the points of exit.

AN yes its True, its damn True that Rand Paul is one of the good ones.

It's too bad this was not put in force before 150 law enforcement authorities and CNN descended upon Rodger Stones house at 6 am.

I support this.

a reply to: infolurker

Who dafuq allowed that authority to be legal in the first place?

A good start, but as was already pointed out, this only applies to federal law enforcement. I feel most of the cases you hear going wrong are done by local cops.

Wouldn’t get too pumped about this bill. There’s no language in it about waiting a “reasonable” amount of time before forcing entry. No language about duration and volume of announcements. So what’s the difference this bill will make?

Scenario one: police stack up on your door, ram it in, and enter.

Scenario two: police stack up on your door, rap on your door twice while saying in a conversational tone “police with a warrant,” then ram your door in and enter.

This is a feel good bill with no teeth.


ETA - since apparently a few of you didn’t actually read the bill, no it doesn’t only apply to the feds. It also applies to any local or state agency that receives any money from DoJ.

Which would be the vast majority of agencies.


ETA #2 - it’s agencies that get federal money within the calendar year. So that’s many, not most. Sorry

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Butterfinger
This also includes SWATting I assume?

By the Feds. Won't affect the people who actually botched the (totally unnecessary) raid.

Rand Paul is virtue signaling with this one ... big time.

ETA: The real problem here is LE overreach. Americans don't need or want to live under a Police State. The people we elected could have abolished these types of practices. Instead, they wait until someone is needlessly killed. If you heard Taylor's boyfriend's voice in the 911 recording ... chilling!!

Want to send a real signal Rand? Prosecute. Round up everyone. Charge #1: Conspiracy (including the judge who signed the murder warrant)!! Do it ... or STFU!!

The way I read your comment: "I only support any legislation if it comes from my side of the fence. All other legislation MUST be opposed."

a reply to: infolurker

They need to tie the hands of all officers. Its a violation of basic human rights vis a vis the 4th amendment.

I cannot believe i live in a nation that its even up for discussion

a reply to: infolurker



That's Nice . Meanwhile , Rand Paul needs to Now Deal with This ..... The NEXT STATE to be Invaded by the RED MENACE ........(

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You know the reason the police have to take an Oath to uphold the constitution is because their job would be so much easier if they didn't have to follow it. As cameras have become more common we see that either through ignorance or arrogance the police are constantly violating citizens' constitutional rights.

I sometimes watch the videos made by 1st amendment auditors. Most of them I can't stand because of their attitude but there are a few I like for their calmness and knowledge of the law. There are two videos recently released by one of them from the same day in different locations of a town that show the police repeatedly violating their rights. The second video the police chief, sheriffs deputies, city police, and state police had all shown up unlawfully detained and forced them to identify under threat of arrest. One officer that was in both videos repeatedly lied or misinterpreted the law in order to violate their rights. All because they had cameras. Just imagine what they do when they are not being recorded.





The amount of arrogance, ignorance, and willingness to violate the constitution displayed by those officers is astounding.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: infolurker

They need to tie the hands of all officers. Its a violation of basic human rights vis a vis the 4th amendment.

I cannot believe i live in a nation that its even up for discussion

When you consider the no-knock was only adopted because of establishment fears that somebody might flush their little packet of dope down a toilet before answering the door when the cops announce their presence, the narrative of it now suddenly being vital to police safety does reek of BS.

originally posted by: Fools
The way I read your comment: "I only support any legislation if it comes from my side of the fence. All other legislation MUST be opposed."

Not the way I meant it. I do think we need the least amount of legislation. I think the legislation we have should be uniformly enforced across the spectrum of the population. If it can't be uniformly enforced ... then it needs to go. But, that's specific to legislation. What we're talking about here is Policy ... and we shouldn't need new laws to end bad policies.

a reply to: infolurker

Great news. Credit to Paul. Haven't been happy with him with many things but he'll get a lot of credit for this. That case of the sleeping lady being killed in that fashion, it brings chills. I don't understand it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: infolurker

They need to tie the hands of all officers. Its a violation of basic human rights vis a vis the 4th amendment.

I cannot believe i live in a nation that its even up for discussion

Ban it across the board and stop civil asset forfeiture and that's a good start on justice reform.

Next, domestic spying?

Let's be real though. The only reform we're going to see is some highly paid oversight positions that will be handed out as political favors.