S.D.Ala.: No-knock warrant was permissible here because of the expected presence of firearms and defendant used surveillance cameras

A no-knock warrant was permissible here because of the expected presence of firearms and defendant used surveillance cameras on the property. United States v. Miller, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93857 (S.D.Ala. July 20, 2015):

Miller also argues the affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis for a no-knock search warrant. (Doc. 91, p. 5). Miller asserts a “concern for police safety must be based upon prior knowledge or direct observation that the subject of the search keeps weapons and that such person has a known propensity to use them.” (Doc. 91, p. 5). This argument is flawed, and it ignores the other reasons stated in the affidavit for requesting a no-knock search warrant, including the potential destruction of evidence. “In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997); see also United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 36 (2003) (noting that “[w]hen a warrant applicant gives reasonable grounds to expect futility or to suspect that one or another such exigency already exists or will arise instantly upon knocking, a magistrate judge is acting within the Constitution to authorize a ‘no-knock’ entry”). The showing an officer must make to receive a “no-knock” warrant “is not high.” Richards, 520 U.S. at 394.