REIGNING IN NO-KNOCKS

No-knock search warrants, like the ill-fated one that cost
Ismael Mena his life last September, would require two approvals
instead of one under a new bill proposed by Sen. Jim Congrove.

SB 208 would require police officers to get a district attorney's
approval for a no-knock warrant as well as the traditional approval
from a judge.

The new law adding that useful step has been endorsed by Gov. Bill
Owens, prosecutors and police.

If overburdened judges aren't giving enough consideration to such
warrants before signing them, then the initial scrutiny by prosecutors
should add another layer of protection to prevent issuance of
unnecessary warrants.

In addition, the district attorneys have a strong incentive to
carefully examine such warrant requests, since their office ultimately
will prosecute any cases turned up by execution of the warrants. If
the warrants are ill-conceived, or sloppily executed, the case could
sink.

Finally, the district attorneys will have their own names attached to
approval of the warrants. They'll be the ones called on the carpet if
anything goes wrong.

Thus the bill would provide a very useful safeguard to issuance of
no-knock warrants. However, the legislation doesn't go far enough.

Congrove, R-Arvada, was pressured by police and prosecutors to soften
his bill so that rather than requiring "clear and convincing evidence"
that the warrant is needed, police can continue to simply cite
"probable cause." We're sorry he succumbed to the pressure. The
requirement for "clear and convincing evidence" is stricter but
needed. Before police go barging into houses unannounced, they should
be required to meet a strong standard of proof as to why such action
is essential.

About 90 percent of all no-knock warrants are used in relatively
innocuous drug cases, which are victimless crimes, rather than to
pursue dangerous felons or operators of methamphetamine factories.

Knocking down someone's door in the dead of night shouldn't be
standard operating procedure for any police department. Such warrants
should be executed only when truly necessary to the public's safety.

We support SB 208. We're only sorry that it already has lost most of
its teeth.