No Knock? No Case: Prosecutorial Deterrence as a Countermeasure to No-Knock Warrants

The high-profile deaths of Amir Locke and Breonna Taylor ignited a national debate surrounding the legitimacy of no-knock warrants. Their deaths are part of a cycle of reaction and inaction that permeates this debate. As the impacted communities and segments of the populace respond by demanding that federal and state legislatures abolish or severely restrict the use of no-knock warrants, they are met with inaction. The legislative bodies have failed to pass laws banning the warrants and judges continue to sign them. This inaction continues to undermine the public’s trust in law enforcement and challenges the legitimacy of a democracy that permits the cycle of reaction and inaction to persist. This Article asserts that a viable solution to break this cycle rests within the purview of prosecutors, who may deter law enforcement from requesting and executing no-knock warrants through the implementation of office policies that discourage their use. Specifically, under this proposed prosecutorial deterrence model, prosecutors may deter law enforcement’s use of no-knock warrants in criminal investigations by administratively suppressing evidence obtained via no-knock warrants or by refusing to pursue cases where no-knock warrants were obtained and executed. This approach necessitates a concerted effort in fostering open communication with law enforcement agencies and fostering transparency within the community. When done correctly, the prosecutorial deterrence model embraces the notion that duly elected officials should be accessible, responsive, and accountable to the people.