'No-Knock Exception' is the rule for Little Rock police

Frank Scott Jr. first saw the video of the Little Rock Police Department's raid at the home of Roderick Talley while running for Little Rock mayor.

Talley, 31, was asleep on his couch when Little Rock police officers used explosives during a "dynamic entry" into Talley's apartment. His door landed on top of him as officers rushed into the room, weapons raised. An informant told police Talley was dealing cocaine, Police had asked a judge to issue a "no-knock warrant" to search Talley's home. In the end, they found only enough marijuana to charge him with a misdemeanor.

"At that point in time, while I was appalled at the usage of that particular no-knock warrant, it came at no surprise," said Scott.

Now mayor of Little Rock, Scott has vowed to change the police department's use of no-knock warrants.

"It's our onus to make sure that we repair the relationship with the community, and what we are doing right now is not only protecting police officers, we are protecting the community and making sure that we aren't arbitrarily issuing no-knock warrants when they do not reach that high bar," said Scott.

That high bar is the Fourth Amendment about which Professor Nick Kahn-Fogel has researched and written extensively.

"[Privacy in your home] is an old requirement that really dates back to the early 1600's in England" explained Kahn-Fogel.

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Basically, it protects our privacy from the government. Kahn-Fogel said it was an Arkansas case, Wilson v. Arkansas, that led the United States Supreme Court to recognize the requirement for police officers to knock and announce their presence when a serving a warrant. There are exceptions, and some police departments began arguing every felony drug crime should be given a no-knock warrant. Once again the supreme court weighed in on no-knock warrants.

"They said you can't give a blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement based simply on the type of crime at issue," said Kahn-Fogel.

That case, Richards v. Wisconsin, was decided in 1997, yet more than 20 years later a blanket exception for felony drug crimes is exactly what the Little Rock Police Department has been doing.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, KATV found with few exceptions every drug-related warrant was a no-knock warrant. From 2009 to 2019, the Narcotics Unit requested 1,594 warrants. Of that 1,594, only 80 were knock and announce warrants, which is the Constitutional standard. In Little Rock, the no-knock "exception" became the rule.

Furthermore, what the Supreme Court requires to be individualized language was copy-and-paste. Nearly every affidavit and warrant recited the same language in the same paragraphs as to why police should not have to knock and announce. Those paragraphs included nothing about the specific suspect's ability to destroy evidence or tendency towards violence.

"When it comes to violence, having some evidence that this person is inclined toward violent conduct and has said something like, 'I'm not going to go back to prison,' and has a gun and has access to that gun," explained Kahn-Fogel.

In the last three years, only 23 of the 215 affidavits for a no-knock warrant even mention the suspects access to a gun, yet every time a police got their warrant.

The reliance on copy paste language also led to mistakes. KATV found 37 occasions where the police affidavit said the warrant would be executed between the hours of 6 or 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., but the actual warrant which is also written by the officer and signed by the judge, allows the officers to conduct night time raids. On background, some experts hypothesized that discrepancy was likely a mistake where the officer forgot to delete the word "night" from the warrant, not an intentional act to deceive the judge.

"They are forms, and it gives opportunities for mistakes, and so we live in a day and time that we can't be afforded many mistakes as it relates to how the community police our community," responded Scott when we brought the discrepancy to his attention.

KATV also found in the last three years, that about a third of the no-knock warrants were requested for marijuana-related offenses. Many warrants didn't result in any charges being filed, and very few - less than five percent - led to a suspect getting any jail time. The vast majority received probation.

However, a repeated sentence in every police affidavit does shed light on why officers feel they need this warrant. "The element of surprise would greatly enhance the safety to law enforcement ."

When asked if Scott worried police officers would feel limiting no-knock warrants takes a tool out of their kit, Scott replied that he always worries about the safety of the officers and prays for them every morning and night. Scott is considering both a city ordinance and a change to internal police policy to limit the use of no-knock warrants.

"I think the men and women of the LRPD will understand the rationale for this, and if not, that is something we have to keep having that relationship building with them to help them understand how important this is to the overall community," said Scott.