Search warrants and the castle doctrine

This is a discussion on Search warrants and the castle doctrine within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The castle doctrine gives a homeowner the right to defend his home with lethal force to prevent unlawful entry. A search warrant allows police to ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: Search warrants and the castle doctrine

  1. #1
    Member Array sentioch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    394

    Search warrants and the castle doctrine

    The castle doctrine gives a homeowner the right to defend his home with lethal force to prevent unlawful entry. A search warrant allows police to make forced entry into a home but they are not required to show the warrant to the homeowner.

    Does anyone else see the catch-22 in this? If the police do not announce their presence or notify the homeowner of the search warrant, then how can the homeowner know if the entry is unlawful or not?
    "In a world of compromise, some don't." -HK

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array chivvalry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    454
    You can't. You are supposed to assume that the gentlemen in riot gear armed with semi-automatic weapons and shotguns bursting through your door in the middle of the night yelling "POLICE!" are actually police. You are supposed to figure that out after being woken from a dead sleep and grabbing your gun while adrenalin dumps into your bloodstream from the fear and panic you are feeling thinking that you are being subjected to a home invasion and your wife and children are about to be raped and murdered. You are supposed to figure that out within seconds... and if you don't figure it out in time and act correctly then you may be dead or on trial for murdering a LEO.
    "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
    You are not paranoid if They are actually out to get you, however, They probably are not and you probably are.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by chivvalry View Post
    You are supposed to assume that the gentlemen in riot gear armed with semi-automatic weapons and shotguns bursting through your door in the middle of the night yelling "POLICE!" are actually police.
    I don't know about yours, but my local SWAT carries automatic weapons. Agreed on the sentiment though. I think no-knock warrants are a load of crap. For the most part as long as we avoid doing anything that would cause such a raid we should be OK, but at the same time there are plenty of documented cases of police getting bad information or going to the wrong house. If the police have a legitimate warrant and want to initiate a no-knock when no one is home, whatever. But any time there's danger of a confrontation there needs to be a warning. Without announcing their presence beforehand they are setting up disaster. If it's a criminal, they're setting up police to be hurt and a criminal to be killed before he can make a trial. If it's not a criminal, they're setting up police to be hurt and an innocent civilian to be hurt or killed for no apparent reason.
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by sentioch View Post
    The castle doctrine gives a homeowner the right to defend his home with lethal force to prevent unlawful entry. A search warrant allows police to make forced entry into a home but they are not required to show the warrant to the homeowner.

    Does anyone else see the catch-22 in this? If the police do not announce their presence or notify the homeowner of the search warrant, then how can the homeowner know if the entry is unlawful or not?
    Um...

    Where are you getting this stuff?

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Um...

    Where are you getting this stuff?
    Training Day?

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array paaiyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,071
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Um...

    Where are you getting this stuff?
    No-knock warrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    My blog

    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Wikipedia...

    Ah.

    I see.

    Nevermind.

  9. #8
    Member Array sentioch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    394
    Wow, there are some great examples on that website demonstrating the problems related to this issue...
    "In a world of compromise, some don't." -HK

  10. #9
    Member Array sentioch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    394
    On a related note....


    Sneak and peek warrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "a search warrant authorizing the law enforcement officers executing it to effect physical entry into private premises without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premises; usually, such entry requires a stealthy breaking and entering."

    While I do not personally have any reason to suspect that police will ever be searching my premises, I can't help but notice the bad place that this would put someone in who is actually trying to defend their home.
    "In a world of compromise, some don't." -HK

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,466
    Hopefully we won't have to worry about it if the new castle doctrine bill for NC gets passed. Here's a excerpt explaining when you can't use deadly force in the new bill:

    "The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer in the lawful performance of his or her official duties."

    So as written, no notice, no protection from being shot legally.

    Here is the bill in it's entirety. http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/B...TML/S34v3.html

  12. #11
    Member Array chivvalry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    Hopefully we won't have to worry about it if the new castle doctrine bill for NC gets passed. Here's a excerpt explaining when you can't use deadly force in the new bill:

    "The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer in the lawful performance of his or her official duties."

    So as written, no notice, no protection from being shot legally.

    Here is the bill in it's entirety. Senate Bill 34-Third Edition
    Still have to process that the person leaping at you with a deadly weapon through the door they just smashed off its hinges is screaming "POLICE" is actually a LEO correctly... and quickly enough to immediately drop your weapon and assume a non-threatening position while they tackle you, throw you to the ground, and hog tie you or you get shot and killed... Hope you guessed right and its not a new home invasion technique.
    "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
    You are not paranoid if They are actually out to get you, however, They probably are not and you probably are.

  13. #12
    Member Array sentioch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by NC Bullseye View Post
    ...and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer in the lawful performance of his or her official duties."
    So as written, no notice, no protection from being shot legally.
    The except you quoted says that the officer must identify himself in accordance with "any applicable laws" that would require the officer to identify himself....but I don't think there are any such laws, so therefore the officer would not need to identify himself...
    "In a world of compromise, some don't." -HK

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array NC Bullseye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC Foothills
    Posts
    2,466
    Quote Originally Posted by sentioch View Post
    The except you quoted says that the officer must identify himself in accordance with "any applicable laws" that would require the officer to identify himself....but I don't think there are any such laws, so therefore the officer would not need to identify himself...
    And if you read the entire bill you will see that they are making the point that some how you would have to have been informed that they were in fact police and you would "reasonably" know that. This is what was missing from the old CD. Would a jury "reasonably" believe that without any verbal notification believe you knowingly shot at police? It now puts the onus on the police to ensure that part is fulfilled.

    If you're not happy with the wording then now is the time to write your reps and tell them to get it changed. I'm ecstatic that we've got one going though now that actually has some teeth to it.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array chiefjason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC
    Posts
    2,737
    My mom got a call about "some guys in black suits that just kidnapped my husband." As she was taking description and getting info from the caller, she saw a group coming in the PD. The guys were in suits and the subject they had matched the description. US Marshall's had executed a no knock warrant and just left without telling anyone who they were. Kind of a funny story, until it goes sideways.
    I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!

    "Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array rammerjammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    3,335
    No knock warrants are unconstitutional in my opinion. They are too fraught with problems and clearly violate the fourth amendment.

    It may seem permissible to use them against criminals, but there are too many possibilities for their implementation to go completely wrong.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Castle Doctrine
    By kapnketel in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 20th, 2010, 09:52 AM
  2. Castle Doctrine in NC
    By Deb in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 5th, 2009, 09:17 AM
  3. Castle Doctrine in MS
    By FLSquirrelHunter in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 01:55 PM
  4. USSC Case - Police need not knock and identify before serving search warrants
    By MattInFla in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: June 17th, 2006, 09:57 AM
  5. NRA - MD need for castle doctrine
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 08:04 PM

Search tags for this page

4th amendment castle doctrine
,
castle doctrine and police searches
,
castle doctrine no knock warrants
,
castle doctrine no-knock raids
,
forced entry warrant north caroina
,

ms castle doctrine

,
no knock search warrant entry wording
,

no knock warrant castle doctrine

,

no knock warrants unconstitutional

,

search warrant scenario

,

search warrant scenarios

,
texas castle doctrine 2011
Click on a term to search for related topics.