CALLERS SLAM DOOR ON NOKNOCK ENTRIES
Copyright (c) 1997, Sentinel Communications Co.

If Sound Off callers were justices on the U.S. Supreme
Court, they would not allow police to enter homes without
announcing themselves even if they had court warrants to
search for drugs.

From early Sunday until noon Monday, 803 readers phoned
in response to the question, "Are noknock entries OK in
drug searches?" There were 544 callers who replied "no" and
259 who answered "yes."

Last week, in a debate about a Madison, Wis., drug raid,
the court contemplated creating an exception to a 1995
ruling that noknock entries usually are unlawful.

A lawyer for the Clinton administration urged the court
to allow noknock searches of homes whenever police
reasonably think they will be endangered or that drugs will
be destroyed in the 10 to 20 seconds between knocking and
entering.

Rob Wilkins, 28, of Orlando summed up the feelings of
many callers, saying, "Noknock searches are against the
U.S. Constitution. It could lead to abuse by other, higher
government officials on other issues besides drugs."

Orange City resident Margaret Cross, 67, said, "Noknock
searches would endanger the freedom of all of us."

Datis Cole, 44, of Melbourne said, "You can't have
noknock searches and still call this a free country. . . .
You can't have government officials busting down doors in a
free country."

Robert N. Webster, 71, of Apopka dismissed noknock
searches as "ludicrous." "We live in a nation where
everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This
would be a decided infringement on everyone's rights." Some
callers said that such entries would endanger police
officers' lives unnecessarily.

Stan McCullars, 32, of Eustis said, "I don't think
noknock entries would be good for police. If someone kicks
in my door and I don't have time to know who he is, he's
going to get shot." He likened the searches to
authoritarian abuses in "Easternbloc countries."

Thirtyoneyearold Brian Briddell of Orlando said, "If
they're worried about people inside trying to flush drugs
down the toilet, police should disconnect the plumbing
before they break down the door."

Some callers, however, saw justification for noknock
searches.

Jonathan C. Gibson, 33, of Altamonte Springs favored the
searches "if police are absolutely sure that the house
they're going into has a known courier or drug dealer,
because they're carrying better weapons than police. Our
police need an advantage. This would give them a leg up."

Joyce Young, 55, of Apopka said, "Noknock entries are
necessary. . . . Even if I were invaded, I still think
noknock searches would be necessary, even if I had
nothing. I would respect authorities for doing that." Helga
Gaines, 48, of Orlando said, "We can't win the war on
drugs if we put all of the eggs into the drug dealers'
baskets. They already have too many advantages over
police."