SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE

When police rammed the door of Breonna Taylor 's home and shot her five times in a hail of thirty-two bullets, they lacked legal justification for being there. The affidavit supporting the warrant was perjurious, stale, vague, and lacking in particularity. The killing of Breonna Taylor, however...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Boston University law review 2022-02, Vol.102 (1), p.1-85
1. Verfasser: Cook, Blanche Bong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 85
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Boston University law review
container_volume 102
creator Cook, Blanche Bong
description When police rammed the door of Breonna Taylor 's home and shot her five times in a hail of thirty-two bullets, they lacked legal justification for being there. The affidavit supporting the warrant was perjurious, stale, vague, and lacking in particularity. The killing of Breonna Taylor, however, is not just a story about the illegality of the warrant. It is also about the legality of the circumstances that facilitated her killing. Police officers lying to obtain warrants and magistrates rubber-stamping facially defective warrants are the stories of individual failings. This Article examines a weightier structural problem: How the Supreme Court fashioned legal doctrine that created the conditions that led to Breonna Taylor 's death. This Article transcends the narrative of bad-apple cops. It is the first to present a structural framework for analyzing how Court rulings about the acquisition and execution of search warrants inequitably distribute premature death in marginalized communities. When the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce requirement, it incentivized police to ignore the rule. The result has been carelessness in the acquisition of warrants and callousness in their execution. When the Court gave police immunity for violating the rule, it sealed Breonna Taylor's fate. Police refusal to knock and announce and to engage in a substantial waiting period before ramming the door is untenable in an age of increased Stand Your Ground Laws and unbridled gun ownership. The proper protocols for police home invasion demand the Supreme Court's review. The spectacle of Breonna Taylor's killing, along with so many others, inflicted a cultural trauma on the public, particularly marginalized communities. The illegal warrant that set Breonna Taylor's death in motion, therefore, demands a public vetting, preferably in an adversarial setting where one party does not monopolize both the facts and the narratives surrounding those facts. The repeated failure to hold police accountable for their killings will destroy the criminal justice system as we know it. The next Breonna Taylor is both foreseeable and preventable.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2641592870</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2641592870</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-12adee6d3ec775918f31a03e59de4fb5d244359c43436b50b93b0aba509992793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjb1OwzAYAD2A1FJ4h09iYIr0-S-O2Uxwm0ipLTkuFVOVNM5QIVqa9v1BwHTSDXc3ZI6IeVagUDNyN00HRIpMqjl5a_3axqp2Kwg-tlA7aMwWrFv6UNq1dRGMe4U6PrUQKwutNaGsYGtCMC4-_7qXYL1zBqJ5b3yA0rT2ntyO3ceUHv65IJuljWWVNX5Vl6bJTpTyS0ZZN6SUDzztlZKaFiOnHfIk9ZDE2MuBCcGl3gsueN5L7DXvses7iVprpjRfkMe_7ul8_Lqm6bI7HK_nz5_ljuWCSs0Khfwb7MVDAA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2641592870</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cook, Blanche Bong</creator><creatorcontrib>Cook, Blanche Bong</creatorcontrib><description>When police rammed the door of Breonna Taylor 's home and shot her five times in a hail of thirty-two bullets, they lacked legal justification for being there. The affidavit supporting the warrant was perjurious, stale, vague, and lacking in particularity. The killing of Breonna Taylor, however, is not just a story about the illegality of the warrant. It is also about the legality of the circumstances that facilitated her killing. Police officers lying to obtain warrants and magistrates rubber-stamping facially defective warrants are the stories of individual failings. This Article examines a weightier structural problem: How the Supreme Court fashioned legal doctrine that created the conditions that led to Breonna Taylor 's death. This Article transcends the narrative of bad-apple cops. It is the first to present a structural framework for analyzing how Court rulings about the acquisition and execution of search warrants inequitably distribute premature death in marginalized communities. When the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce requirement, it incentivized police to ignore the rule. The result has been carelessness in the acquisition of warrants and callousness in their execution. When the Court gave police immunity for violating the rule, it sealed Breonna Taylor's fate. Police refusal to knock and announce and to engage in a substantial waiting period before ramming the door is untenable in an age of increased Stand Your Ground Laws and unbridled gun ownership. The proper protocols for police home invasion demand the Supreme Court's review. The spectacle of Breonna Taylor's killing, along with so many others, inflicted a cultural trauma on the public, particularly marginalized communities. The illegal warrant that set Breonna Taylor's death in motion, therefore, demands a public vetting, preferably in an adversarial setting where one party does not monopolize both the facts and the narratives surrounding those facts. The repeated failure to hold police accountable for their killings will destroy the criminal justice system as we know it. The next Breonna Taylor is both foreseeable and preventable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-8047</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Boston University School of Law</publisher><subject>Criminal investigations ; Drugs ; Evidence ; Home invasion ; Jaynes, Joshua ; Law enforcement ; Murders &amp; murder attempts ; Search warrants ; Self defense ; Taylor, Breonna</subject><ispartof>Boston University law review, 2022-02, Vol.102 (1), p.1-85</ispartof><rights>Copyright Boston University School of Law Feb 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cook, Blanche Bong</creatorcontrib><title>SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE</title><title>Boston University law review</title><description>When police rammed the door of Breonna Taylor 's home and shot her five times in a hail of thirty-two bullets, they lacked legal justification for being there. The affidavit supporting the warrant was perjurious, stale, vague, and lacking in particularity. The killing of Breonna Taylor, however, is not just a story about the illegality of the warrant. It is also about the legality of the circumstances that facilitated her killing. Police officers lying to obtain warrants and magistrates rubber-stamping facially defective warrants are the stories of individual failings. This Article examines a weightier structural problem: How the Supreme Court fashioned legal doctrine that created the conditions that led to Breonna Taylor 's death. This Article transcends the narrative of bad-apple cops. It is the first to present a structural framework for analyzing how Court rulings about the acquisition and execution of search warrants inequitably distribute premature death in marginalized communities. When the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce requirement, it incentivized police to ignore the rule. The result has been carelessness in the acquisition of warrants and callousness in their execution. When the Court gave police immunity for violating the rule, it sealed Breonna Taylor's fate. Police refusal to knock and announce and to engage in a substantial waiting period before ramming the door is untenable in an age of increased Stand Your Ground Laws and unbridled gun ownership. The proper protocols for police home invasion demand the Supreme Court's review. The spectacle of Breonna Taylor's killing, along with so many others, inflicted a cultural trauma on the public, particularly marginalized communities. The illegal warrant that set Breonna Taylor's death in motion, therefore, demands a public vetting, preferably in an adversarial setting where one party does not monopolize both the facts and the narratives surrounding those facts. The repeated failure to hold police accountable for their killings will destroy the criminal justice system as we know it. The next Breonna Taylor is both foreseeable and preventable.</description><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Home invasion</subject><subject>Jaynes, Joshua</subject><subject>Law enforcement</subject><subject>Murders &amp; murder attempts</subject><subject>Search warrants</subject><subject>Self defense</subject><subject>Taylor, Breonna</subject><issn>0006-8047</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjb1OwzAYAD2A1FJ4h09iYIr0-S-O2Uxwm0ipLTkuFVOVNM5QIVqa9v1BwHTSDXc3ZI6IeVagUDNyN00HRIpMqjl5a_3axqp2Kwg-tlA7aMwWrFv6UNq1dRGMe4U6PrUQKwutNaGsYGtCMC4-_7qXYL1zBqJ5b3yA0rT2ntyO3ceUHv65IJuljWWVNX5Vl6bJTpTyS0ZZN6SUDzztlZKaFiOnHfIk9ZDE2MuBCcGl3gsueN5L7DXvses7iVprpjRfkMe_7ul8_Lqm6bI7HK_nz5_ljuWCSs0Khfwb7MVDAA</recordid><startdate>20220201</startdate><enddate>20220201</enddate><creator>Cook, Blanche Bong</creator><general>Boston University School of Law</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220201</creationdate><title>SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE</title><author>Cook, Blanche Bong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-12adee6d3ec775918f31a03e59de4fb5d244359c43436b50b93b0aba509992793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Home invasion</topic><topic>Jaynes, Joshua</topic><topic>Law enforcement</topic><topic>Murders &amp; murder attempts</topic><topic>Search warrants</topic><topic>Self defense</topic><topic>Taylor, Breonna</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cook, Blanche Bong</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Boston University law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cook, Blanche Bong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE</atitle><jtitle>Boston University law review</jtitle><date>2022-02-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>85</epage><pages>1-85</pages><issn>0006-8047</issn><abstract>When police rammed the door of Breonna Taylor 's home and shot her five times in a hail of thirty-two bullets, they lacked legal justification for being there. The affidavit supporting the warrant was perjurious, stale, vague, and lacking in particularity. The killing of Breonna Taylor, however, is not just a story about the illegality of the warrant. It is also about the legality of the circumstances that facilitated her killing. Police officers lying to obtain warrants and magistrates rubber-stamping facially defective warrants are the stories of individual failings. This Article examines a weightier structural problem: How the Supreme Court fashioned legal doctrine that created the conditions that led to Breonna Taylor 's death. This Article transcends the narrative of bad-apple cops. It is the first to present a structural framework for analyzing how Court rulings about the acquisition and execution of search warrants inequitably distribute premature death in marginalized communities. When the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce requirement, it incentivized police to ignore the rule. The result has been carelessness in the acquisition of warrants and callousness in their execution. When the Court gave police immunity for violating the rule, it sealed Breonna Taylor's fate. Police refusal to knock and announce and to engage in a substantial waiting period before ramming the door is untenable in an age of increased Stand Your Ground Laws and unbridled gun ownership. The proper protocols for police home invasion demand the Supreme Court's review. The spectacle of Breonna Taylor's killing, along with so many others, inflicted a cultural trauma on the public, particularly marginalized communities. The illegal warrant that set Breonna Taylor's death in motion, therefore, demands a public vetting, preferably in an adversarial setting where one party does not monopolize both the facts and the narratives surrounding those facts. The repeated failure to hold police accountable for their killings will destroy the criminal justice system as we know it. The next Breonna Taylor is both foreseeable and preventable.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Boston University School of Law</pub><tpages>85</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-8047
ispartof Boston University law review, 2022-02, Vol.102 (1), p.1-85
issn 0006-8047
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2641592870
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Criminal investigations
Drugs
Evidence
Home invasion
Jaynes, Joshua
Law enforcement
Murders & murder attempts
Search warrants
Self defense
Taylor, Breonna
title SOMETHING ROTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT'S THE SEARCH WARRANT: THE BREONNA TAYLOR CASE
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T15%3A54%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SOMETHING%20ROTS%20IN%20LAW%20ENFORCEMENT%20AND%20IT'S%20THE%20SEARCH%20WARRANT:%20THE%20BREONNA%20TAYLOR%20CASE&rft.jtitle=Boston%20University%20law%20review&rft.au=Cook,%20Blanche%20Bong&rft.date=2022-02-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=85&rft.pages=1-85&rft.issn=0006-8047&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2641592870%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2641592870&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true