By Jon Becker (Host of The Debrief Podcast)
In preparing to record Episode 18 of “The Debrief with Jon Becker” about the Breonna Taylor case, I studied everything I could find about the case. 1 I read the reports, complaints, and news coverage. I looked at the pictures and videos of the scene, the post-event interviews, and the protests. I also spoke at length to people involved in the event to get their firsthand perspectives. What I discovered was that my understanding of the case, gathered mostly by watching the news coverage, was largely inaccurate. In fact, things that I had understood to have occurred had not. And, perhaps most importantly, the people involved and the events that occurred were so typical of the people I’ve worked with over the years that it was uncanny. These were not racist monsters without regard for human life. They were very typical narcotics detectives, doing what most agencies do, when their luck ran out and they got thrown into a public firestorm that ruined everyone’s lives.
The Breonna Taylor case was a flashpoint for American law enforcement. What started off as a “simple search warrant” looking for documents, money, and possibly drugs in support of a case against her ex-boyfriend, quickly exploded into a tragedy of epic proportions. No matter what your views are of this case, one thing is certain- there were no winners on March 13, 2020. Everyone involved in the event was negatively and permanently, impacted. The service of this seemingly “simple” warrant resulted in the death of Ms. Taylor, the near-fatal injury of Sgt. John Mattingly, criminal charges against several officers, career-ending firings and retirements, death threats against police officers, protests and riots, property damage, millions of dollars in settlements, and a substantial amount of gasoline being poured on the fire for law enforcement reform. Sadly, amidst all of the turmoil, the lessons learned from this “cautionary tale” were lost in the firestorm of false narratives, accusations of racism, and a search for someone to blame. Throughout my research, the same four issues kept coming up: agency transparency, disputing false narratives, effective knock and notice, and using dynamic tactics. These four issues give rise to what are potentially the four most important lessons learned from the Breonna Taylor case.
1) Agency Transparency is Essential
When this case occurred on March 13, 2020, it did not receive much media attention. This was because March 13 was the day that President Trump declared a national emergency for COVID-19 and the country began to shut down and quarantine. As a result, Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) managed to avoid immediate national media attention and chose to remain quiet about the case, likely to avoid inflaming the issue. But this silence fed the narrative of a government coverup and laid the foundation for what followed. Two months later, civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump took on the Taylor case, and due to his profile (and the fact that he was also working the Ahmaud Arbery case), he generated almost nightly media coverage. He also utilized a carefully dissected version of the facts to focus scrutiny on certain actions taken by LMPD, without context perhaps, to increase pressure and generate a settlement. Just two weeks later, the George Floyd case occurred, and the narrative of unarmed blacks being murdered by the police exploded across the world.
Under a constant onslaught of attention, LMPD continued to release very little information about the case. Worse yet, some of what they released (e.g. the incident report) was patently inaccurate. This perpetuated the narrative of a police coverup and just a few days later Louisville exploded in riots. While it is impossible to know what immediate transparency might have done to diffuse the resulting events, there is an old saying that bad news does not get better with time. This is especially true in law enforcement. The government polices at the consent of the people. Police are given special abilities to override the rights of citizens when necessary and as a result, are held to a high standard for their actions. When an event occurs that brings into question the legality of police actions, anything less than full transparency creates a perception of bad behavior and a coverup. While it can certainly be argued that no matter what police do this will occur, that is not a reason to arm the opposition by hiding or delaying facts that should be disclosed. If we have learned anything from the use of body-worn cameras it is that transparency works and is often effective at diffusing the attacks from pundits that follow. Future agencies facing similar circumstances should target fast and transparent responses as best practices.
2) It is Critical to Oppose False Narratives
Along the same lines as being transparent, it is crucial for agencies to directly, and aggressively, oppose false narratives with clear facts. The Breonna Taylor case may be the single most successful use of selective facts and false narratives in recent history. Although the media narrative of this event is simple, “racist cops shoot unarmed black woman in her home,” the reality of the situation is much more complicated. Not only were the initial reports of what happened incorrect, they were so widely reported that they took on a life of their own. To this day, most people still believe that the police executed a no-knock entry, at the wrong address, and shot Breonna asleep in her bed after her boyfriend fired a warning shot. This is in part due to this case becoming a “cause celebre” due to its temporal proximity with the George Floyd case. Although the facts are completely different, the two were quickly conflated into the same narrative that “white cops are killing unarmed black citizens for no reason.” Combine this with the fact that inaccurate information (e.g., the warrant was served at the wrong house, Breonna was shot in her bed, etc.) was repeated to national media by Kamala Harris 2 , Beyonce, Alicia Keys, Lebron James 3 , and others and the inaccurate initial facts quickly became the story.
But, even a causal review of the physical evidence dispels these conclusions. Some examples include: that although the warrant had a no-knock endorsement, no one disputes that the police were banging at the door before making entry; clearly Walker and Taylor heard the knocking or they would not have been in the hallway with a gun; Breonna was indeed named in the warrant as a result of her relationship to the target Jamarcus Glover 4 ; Breonna was not found in bed, she was found in the hallway and Walker admitted they were in the hallway when the shooting occurred; and perhaps most importantly, the “warning shot” that Kenneth Walker fired was not a shot into the air, it was a near-fatal shot into the femoral artery of a police officer resulting in the officers returning fire in self-defense.
Virtually all these facts were known to LMPD and city leadership immediately. Yet the City tried to take a conciliatory tone to appease activists (even supporting them at times) to try and prevent further issues. Unfortunately, this gave the clear impression that LMPD had made a mistake and fed the narrative that the officer’s actions were all bad. Retrospectively, this was the wrong course of action, which should serve as a cautionary tale for future incidents. If the city had instead actively disputed the false narratives and owned the facts that did exist, it may have taken some of the false narratives off the table earlier and helped to avoid the resulting onslaught.
3) Knock and Notice Must Be Effective
Providing “knock and notice” during the execution of a search warrant is a constitutional requirement. It is intended, in part, to allow the occupants of a location an opportunity to open their door and submit to search without the need for force. In this case, however, knock and notice were not legally required. LMPD had a valid search warrant, signed by a judge, that contained a “no knock endorsement.” As such, they were within their rights to simply make an entry with no notice. Despite this, LMPD chose to execute the warrant with a knock and notice because they believed she was alone in the home and were only looking for documents, money, and perhaps drugs.
Despite initial narratives to the contrary, it is now clear that LMPD knocked on the door at Breonna Taylor’s apartment for approximately 45 seconds before breaching the front door. This is clear not only from the testimony of the officers but from at least one of the witnesses and from the testimony and actions of Kenneth Walker. The dispute, however, is whether officers gave notice that they were the police and were executing a search warrant. Put differently, what is a crux issue in this case is the effectiveness of the notice police provided and whether Walker and Taylor knew it was the police at the door. One narrative, offered by Crump, is that Walker thought it was Breonna’s ex-boyfriend (Glover) at the door and feared for his life. In support of this, they argue that his actions are in accordance with this. For example, he fired one round and then hid in the bedroom leaving Taylor behind in the hallway. These are not the actions of a man who wants to shoot it out with the police. If so, this may have been a case of mistaken identity on Walker’s part which then forced the hand of LMPD officers and led to Taylor's death. While most witnesses on-scene have said they never heard the police announce who they were, there is at least one non-party witness who said they did.
This begs the question, could a more effective knock and notice have prevented this tragedy in the first place? By all accounts LMPD did not have a marked unit in front of the house, officers although wearing tactical armor, were dressed in plain clothes and they did not make their announcements over a PA which would increase the likelihood of occupants hearing the notice. It is common practice in many agencies to place a marked unit with lights on in front of the house and to combine that with a loud announcement over a PA system to ensure that the knock and notice is effective at the target location. In fact, some agencies even record their announcement from the opposite side of the house to ensure that everyone knows the police are on-scene and serving a search warrant. It is impossible to know if a loud speaker or visual notifications would have made the difference in this case. But this case is certainly a warning to other agencies to ensure that your announcement is heard by everyone if possible, in future cases. If nothing else, doing so will prevent the occupants from claiming that they never heard the announcement or trying to utilize self-defense to justify violent actions.
4) Dynamic Tactics for Gathering Evidence May Not Be The Best Plan
There has been a great deal of focus paid to the fact that LMPD intended to use dynamic entry tactics in executing the warrant. Although the shooting occurred immediately after the breach of the door, dynamic entry was their plan. The use of dynamic tactics is, by design, fast and startling. It is believed that speed and surprise protect officers from potential assailants by giving them the initiative and by placing suspects in a position of tactical disadvantage that will encourage surrender. While this is almost certainly true in situations like hostage rescue where fast movement, unexpected entry, and diversionary tactics are used, its use for search warrants has come into question.
In recent years, the use of dynamic tactics for search warrants has been attacked for actually increasing danger for both officers and occupants by compressing decision-making timelines and increasing the likelihood of an error being made. As evidence for this, opponents cite numerous examples of unarmed occupants being shot by police as well as officers being shot by occupants who thought they were being robbed. These errors have led to scrutiny for dynamic tactics not just by civil rights advocates, but by law enforcement organizations as well.
In the Spring 2022 issue of The Tactical Edge, the National Tactical Officers Association took a very clear position against the use of no-knock warrants and/or dynamic tactics in cases where evidence preservation is the objective. Citing evidence as being the lowest of the safety priorities (below hostages/victims, innocent bystanders, public safety personnel, and suspects) the NTOA argued “No-knock search warrants, though well intended, no longer pass the test of tactical science, risk mitigation practices and liability-conscious decision-making.” 5 Although this position statement followed (and was certainly impacted by the Breonna Taylor case), this is not new thinking. In fact, many years prior to this incident, numerous agencies had already abandoned the use of dynamic tactics for search warrants in favor of using a “contain and call-out” approach where the location is surrounded, and all occupants are “called out” to police before anyone enters the home.
There is no way to be sure that using a contain and call-out approach at Breonna Taylor’s apartment would have changed the result. However, cases like this certainly call into question the use of dynamic tactics on search warrants and agencies would be wise to consider their alternatives before using them.
Conclusion
When I decided to take on the Breonna Taylor case for The Debrief, I knew it was a hot-button issue that we would need to handle delicately. There is no question that people have strong opinions and that at least some of those opinions are not based on the evidence of the case. But the fact is that a young woman lost her life at the hands of police, a police officer almost lost his life, and literally dozens of lives were ruined during a search warrant for documents that seemed to merit a Critical Incident Review. To say the least, what I expected and what I found were very different. This was a tragic event for everyone involved. There were actions taken by police both before and after the event which were, at best questionable, and at worst, illegal. These actions are now the subject of Federal criminal charges which will play out over the next few months and have already led to a conviction. Surprisingly, the actions I expected to be the most controversial (the actual shooting of Breonna Taylor) ended up being much simpler to explain than expected. Simply put, Breonna Taylor was caught in a crossfire when police returned fire at her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who was standing next to her and had just shot a police officer. This does not, by any means, excuse the death of Breonna Taylor which was an unmitigated tragedy. It is very easy in these cases to run to our political corners and yell at each other because it allows us to not engage in difficult discussions or experience painful self-reflection. Yet, in the process of doing so, we will fail to gather the lessons learned on March 13, 2020, which will almost certainly lead to a similar event in the future. As the saying goes, if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. That would also be a tragedy.
1 A good place to start looking for the information on the case is the City of Louisville Website located here: Breonna Taylor Investigation | Louisville Metro PD, KY (louisville-police.org) This contains a large amount of the information on the case and the photos.
4 Breonna Taylor: Why Louisville police decided to forcibly search home (courier-journal.com)
5 NTOA Position on No-Knock Warrant Service – The Tactical Edge – Spring 2022 p.22
