No Knock Warrants


PDA






ARTiger
April 6, 2006, 04:19 PM
A young man who works indirectly for me in south Florida was recently the target of a "no-knock" warrant. At about 4:15 Monday morning his local SWAT team bashed in his apartment door with a battering ram, rushed into his dark apartment with flashlights attached to their weapons pulled him and his girlfriend forcably from their bed and subdued them with plastic cable ties on their wrists and ankles.

Even after he identified himself and told them where to get his drivers license they left this couple restrained on the floor for over two hours. Finally the police determined they had the wrong address and released these folks and left without even the least bit of an apology. In fact while the couple was restrained the police ramsacked the apartment causing a good deal of damage.

He was told by his lawyer that a lawsuit would not likely work as the city/county could claim "soviergn immunity". [I don't quite buy that and have asked our corporate counsel to inquire with other lawyers in that area.]

HOWEVER . . . My thoughts are that WHAT IF the young man had a gun and was awake at the time. I am guessing he would probably be dead now. Where I live for instance we have a "castle law" and I can defend my home using deadly force. But what about from police who forcibly enter unannounced. What if the time frame from whenever they yell "police" and I start shooting back is out of synch? How the hell do I determine who's police and not in the middle of the night if I am awaked by my door crashing down?

I am typically a law enforcement proponent, but it would seem that the civil liberties folks may need a hand on this issue. Nowadays it seems all about drugs. Am I alone in thinking drugs were more prevalent about 20 years ago than today? I also wonder about the socioeconomic fairness of these raids. For instance are the police going to clear their "no knock" raid on my house through our private security company who monitors our alarm and looks after the security gate to our neighborhood?

If you enjoyed reading about "No Knock Warrants" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ElTacoGrande
April 6, 2006, 04:26 PM
My thoughts are that WHAT IF the young man had a gun and was awake at the time. I am guessing he would probably be dead now.

He would either a) be dead or b) be charged with assault on a police officer. From what I can tell about SWAT teams, I would bet on option a).

This no-knock warrant thing got its start with our War on Drugs. Oh the things we give up in that war!

Ultimately we are going to lose all of our freedoms, including gun rights, in the name of this War on Drugs if they keep on escalating it.

Socio-economic fairness of these raids: Good point. There's no way they have raids like that in Beverly Hills. They probalby do them mostly in Compton and Englewood and whatever.

exar
April 6, 2006, 04:27 PM
There was an incident recently where SWAT busted into a man's apartment based on the word of a narc. The man heard noises so he got into his daughter's bedroom and had his pistol drawn. Fearing for his and his daughter's life, he claimed no ID was made by the officers and when they bashed down the door he fired and killed the sherriff's son. Turns out he wasn't who they were looking for and found nothing. I believe the man is now facing the death penalty.

ArmedBear
April 6, 2006, 04:30 PM
If you were black in Mississippi and the cop you shoot is the son of the police chief, you'd be sitting on death row.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5639
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html

No knock warrants are simply unacceptable. I have a defined legal right, even in California, believe it or not, to shoot first and ask questions later, if someone busts down the door of my house in the middle of the night without announcing who they are.

Usually, these warrants are used for suspected drug dealers. End the drug war, and end this destruction of our civil rights.

And free Corey Maye!

Sindawe
April 6, 2006, 04:33 PM
How the hell do I determine who's police and not in the middle of the night if I am awaked by my door crashing down? Why, by the presentation of the warrant to enter and search, silly. Oh, wait. This was a NO KNOCK raid, hmmmm.... maybe by the presentation of the warrant AFTER the entry was made? Oh, wait. Per some posters here, cops don't even NEED the have the warrant in hand when searching.

exar
April 6, 2006, 04:33 PM
ArmedBear
Thanks alot! Thats the exact story I was refering to. LEGALIZE AND REGULATE!!

c_yeager
April 6, 2006, 04:40 PM
I think that "No Knocks" have a certain place. But they are being seriously abused. Cops need to weigh the risks and rewards here. The sad fact is that the only thing that is going to change the current thinking here is if more officers get killed by innocent citizens. Of course, the reaction to that would probably be the use of aerial bombing. Its rare for administrators to give up power.

Don't Tread On Me
April 6, 2006, 04:51 PM
Welcome to Amerika. :(

Kodiaz
April 6, 2006, 04:52 PM
If he was awake and used his gun in the state of Fl. He would eventually be found not guilty. 4 or 5 cops have been killed under the Castle law and the shooters have been found not guilty.

ElTacoGrande
April 6, 2006, 04:58 PM
he claimed no ID was made by the officers and when they bashed down the door

It doesn't matter if the cops yelled "Police!" or not, IMHO. No reasonable person would take that as proof that the invaders are police and acting lawfully. Maybe criminals should just start yelling "police!" and we have to comply with them?

Police powers should depend on them acting like police, and if they serve a no-knock warrant and make a mistake and get killed the home-defender should have no liabilities in this.

Police should wear clearly identifiable uniforms (not black commando gear), they should knock, identify themselves as police, have a warrant, give the resident a reasonable amount of time to comply with the warrant, and anonymous tips from liars (ie, narcs) should not count as probable cause for a home-invasion.

ARTiger
April 6, 2006, 04:59 PM
The story above about the the young man in Mississippi is what I was thinking of, but rather in his case he was apparently the better shot. He's on death row for defending his home? Unbelievable! Yet again, I know Mississippi and for those who think the worst of the "old south" is gone there are vestiges that linger. Still I would think that the guy with gun in hand on these raids gets killed by police more than not.

I'm a really conservative guy who's starting to lean Way left on this issue. I do not think the police (wherever) would do these raids in "good" neighborhoods.

Jeff White
April 6, 2006, 05:23 PM
Not again.....:rolleyes:

Tell you guys what, why don't you do a search on no knocks, and after you read all those threads you think you have something more to add to the discussion, then post it here, because most of those old threads are closed for good reason.

Jeff

psychophipps
April 6, 2006, 05:33 PM
The main issue with 'No Knock' warrants is the lack of basic follow-up by the police performing them. It's simply being lazy from a legal and tactical standpoint to just take some random informant's word that some house needs a good dose of the SWAT lovin'. In all of the horror story posts above the police apparently didn't do any further intelligence gathering or recons of the location to be hit and that is where they ASS-U-MEd they had the right place with the right guy. Now the close neighbor who was the target moves their operations because of the close call. Nice one, officers! :rolleyes:

The seven-Ps holds true in police work every bit as much as it does in the military,
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

Sindawe
April 6, 2006, 05:36 PM
Tell you guys what, why don't you do a search on no knocks, and after you read all those threads you think you have something more to add to the discussion, then post it here, because most of those old threads are closed for good reason. Now what fun would THAT be Jeff? Don't you know that dead horses need to be beaten? ;)

exar
April 6, 2006, 05:47 PM
Beating a dead horse is just as much fun as it looks. Everyone else will see you doing it and join in...

ARTiger
April 6, 2006, 05:58 PM
Well excuse me. Thought this was a free and open discussion rather than one limited to those not already discussed. Are we supposed to search out pearls of wisdom from past posts before daring to post an opinion here?

SomeKid
April 6, 2006, 06:16 PM
He was told by his lawyer that a lawsuit would not likely work as the city/county could claim "soviergn immunity". [I don't quite buy that and have asked our corporate counsel to inquire with other lawyers in that area.]

Tell him to find a better lawyer. The local cops made him a millionaire, all he has to do is cash in his check.

seeker_two
April 6, 2006, 06:18 PM
Not again..... :rolleyes:

Tell you guys what, why don't you do a search on no knocks, and after you read all those threads you think you have something more to add to the discussion, then post it here, because most of those old threads are closed for good reason.

Jeff

Just out of curiosity, which moderator is usually the one who closes the "No-Knock-Warrant" threads?... :scrutiny:

TallPine
April 6, 2006, 06:51 PM
ARTiger, you must be mistaken ... ;)

I have it on good authority from various LEO members of THR that these "wrong address" no-knock raids never happen :uhoh:

Molon Labe
April 6, 2006, 06:59 PM
When the cops are conducting a no-knock warrant, they are not cops; they are simply armed thugs.

It matters not what they're yelling when they're breaking down your door. Thugs are thugs, and you should defend yourself accordingly.

MechAg94
April 6, 2006, 07:40 PM
What liability does the city have if they raid an address NOT listed on the warrant? It seems to me the city would be fully liable for all damages.

I know on my house, the address numbers are large and very visible. They would have to be extremely incompetent to screw that up.

Standing Wolf
April 6, 2006, 08:20 PM
Well, yeah, but we're not a police state: we still have the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., right? So things are still lawful, right?

50 Freak
April 6, 2006, 08:36 PM
Wow, hope this doesn't happen to me, I'd would start opening up with my 308 FAL.

Honestly, I'd never hear "Police". I'd be to focus on the sounds of somebody smashing my door in and running down the halls towards me.

I'm not a gang banger or druggie, and the only trouble with the law is a speeding ticket. So my first thought is "not police" but home invader.

I hate to say, but a bunch of innocent people will have to die before these no-knocks are stopped.

Or a quicker route would route is an informant gives bad info on some poor Senator's kid. Have the SWAT raid his house and kill him and then you'll see Congress put a stop to this real quick.

But as long as it is happening to "average" people like you and me, it's going to take a lot of body bags to stop this.

Zero_DgZ
April 6, 2006, 09:11 PM
"Police!"

(Bang, bounce.)

"Hmm."

(Bang, bounce. Bang, bounce. Bang, bounce. Bang, bounce.)

"What is this, a blast door?"

Having a brother-in-law that works in the door fabrication business may be very helpful indeed. I'll see if I can get you guys a deal.

one45auto
April 6, 2006, 09:36 PM
If he'd had a gun they'd either have shot him dead, or in the unlikely event he managed to take one or two of them out first they'd have still killed him but planted evidence afterward to make the raid appear justified and cover up their absolute incompetence.

The lack of any sort of apology clearly shows their arrogance and total lack of respect for the citizenry they're supposed to be serving. (And they wonder why they have such a bad reputation and people distrust them....)

Molon Labe
April 6, 2006, 09:52 PM
+1, 50 Freak.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I truly feel sorry for anyone who breaks down my door. It will be their Unlucky Day™.

beerslurpy
April 6, 2006, 10:40 PM
Jeff White, I take offense. This horse is anything but dead. In fact, the abuses continue to escalate. The horse will be dead when the abuses have been remedied and no longer occur. Then you can object to the raising of this topic.

50_Freak is right, people are going to have to start dying for this sort of abuse to be remedied. Fortunately, no-knocks can be discouraged in the EXACT same way that home invaders and burglars are discouraged. Sleep with a rifle or slug gun by your bed and shoot intruders. This is perfectly legal and will contribute to the overall safety of society by diminishing the bravey both home invaders AND tyrants.

Jeff White
April 6, 2006, 10:57 PM
beerslurpy,
I don't care one tiny bit if you take offense. There are plenty of unsettled topics that the membership is unable to hold a civil discussion about. Most likely this thread will go the way of the rest of them. 100+ posts, people thumping their chest and bragging about killing police officer, others getting angry over that, name calling, members warned then banned and eventually the thread is closed.

If you all think you can hold a civil High Road discussion of this topic, then you are welcome to continue. You may notice the thread wasn't closed.

That's why I posted my suggestion to look up the earlier threads. I doubt you'll find too many of them that didn't end up just as I have described here.

Jeff

beerslurpy
April 6, 2006, 11:02 PM
Sorry for the double posts, the forum server is really slow tonight.

I didnt take offense because I wanted an apology. I'm a big boy and I can take lots of offense without getting angry.

Yeah, I agree that there is no reason not to be civil about this topic. I think it is important enough an issue that we can all afford to forego trolling the other side.

Jeff White
April 6, 2006, 11:10 PM
Coments like this make my point from the last post:

originally posted by beerslurpy:
Fortunately, no-knocks can be discouraged in the EXACT same way that home invaders and burglars are discouraged. Sleep with a rifle or slug gun by your bed and shoot intruders. This is perfectly legal and will contribute to the overall safety of society by diminishing the bravey of both home invaders AND tyrants.

It's not only inflammatory, but is an emotional argument devoid of any common sense. First off, if the SWAT team has any inkling of what they are about, you will have many more dead homeowners then you will SWAT cops. And with each one some homeowner manages to kill or injure you are essentially buying that department more military toys because you've just taught the city fathers, county board whomever the lesson that they aren't prepared.

I'm pretty sure you've never served in the military or on a police department, because a response like I quoted above will never get you the result you want. It will only take you the opposite way much faster.

The proper remedy is in the courts or in the legislature. That's the only way you'll prevail. Force will always be met with greater force and few individuals have the resources to meet the govt. with greater force.

Jeff

beerslurpy
April 6, 2006, 11:25 PM
Lets review why the judicial and legislative approaches you suggest are likely to fail.

The police are largely immune to lawsuits for damages unless they mess up really badly and obviously act in bad faith. One's recourse against such intrusions is essentially limited to the exclusionary rule and even this has been dead since 1999 (in the case of no-knocks Richards v. Wisconsin 1999) .

The legislature is largely immune to pleas to halt this behavior for the same reason they ignore pleas to end the war on drugs. Because the police arent kicking in doors of businessmen or politicians in middle class neighborhoods. They are doing this in poor neighborhoods mostly.

So please tell me what political strategy you propose for ending the use of paramilitary tactics in search warrants.

wheelgunslinger
April 6, 2006, 11:37 PM
Jeffwhite,
I will agree with you that shooting cops is not the right way. Anyone with a tactical headstart on a sleeping vic. in a home is coming out on top.
It just seems ridiculous that in our country cops in SWAT gear can bust in with no knock warrants, hog tie citizens, ransack their home, then leave without an apology. All with impunity.

It's not something I like the idea of and after reading various threads on this subject, I'm determined to do something about it in my local area. I'm going to get involved and make this sort of thing my pet project.

Just out of curiosity Jeff, pretend you aren't a LEO and imagine what it would be like to have SWAT break in to your home in the wee hours. Or worse, consider that you know on an academic level that no-knocks can happen where you live. Would a bump in the night be met with quick decisive measures, or would you second guess it thinking maybe it's SWAT coming in to your Jungle Room™ (shameless Elvis plug) and be less decisive? And would that lack of decisiveness be enough to put your life at risk? Or, would you just whip out the AR or whatever you carry from the squad car to the house at night, and start slicing the pie through your home in search of the poor dumb guy who broke in to your home?
Seriously, Jeff, what would you do?

I'm deeply offended by the idea that the police can execute such warrants on the public. I'm just confused by what course of action to take with this. Do I exercise my right to defend my home, or do I always assume that anyone bumping around might be SWAT, BATF, or Delta Force? Having had my apartment searched by BATF years back, I know this isn't ridiculous. (They were looking for the ATlanta bomber, before they fingered Rudolph.)
I'm not trying to be a smarty pants. Just trying to keep it light, but I would like an answer since you've decided to moderate this thread so heavily.

Jeff White
April 6, 2006, 11:49 PM
beerslurpy said;
Lets review why the judicial and legislative approaches you suggest are likely to fail.


Ok, lets...

The police are largely immune to lawsuits for damages unless they mess up really badly and obviously act in bad faith. One's recourse against such intrusions is essentially limited to the exclusionary rule and even this has been dead since 1999 (in the case of no-knocks Richards v. Wisconsin 1999) .

This is true and after reading the oral aguments in Hudson v. Michigan, I don't see this court changing anything. I know you can't judge by what the justices say during oral arguments, but given the records of the justices, I don't see them extending the exclusionary rule to evidence legally seized on a warrant if the police don't wait a specified length of time before entering a dwelling. I don't think they'd want to flood the courts with requests for new trials considering how many possible cases there might be.

The legislature is largely immune to pleas to halt this behavior for the same reason they ignore pleas to end the war on drugs. Because the police arent kicking in doors of businessmen or politicians in middle class neighborhoods. They are doing this in poor neighborhoods mostly.

The legislature is responsive to the mood of the electorate. You have to first convice the electorate that the war on drugs is as failed a policy as prohibition ever was. And the electorate is slowly moving that way. We have decriminalized marijuana in some states (possession of small amounts) and a couple have passed medical marijuana laws.

The problem is convincing the electorate so that they will elect a legislature that will declare victory in the war on drugs and move on is a slow process. It will probably take another 40 years or so.

It was the war on drugs that started us down this road, and only the end of the war on drugs will stop it.

I really do believe that the gun culture would not be interested in this issue at all if it wasn't for the Clinton gun ban. Until the average conservative gun owner started worrying that BATFE would kick down his door at 0330 because he had a full capcity magazine for his Glock or AK he thought that there was no danger of his home being raided. It all depends on whose ox is being gored that day.

Jeff

beerslurpy
April 6, 2006, 11:57 PM
I really do believe that the gun culture would not be interested in this issue at all if it wasn't for the Clinton gun ban. Until the average conservative gun owner started worrying that BATFE would kick down his door at 0330 because he had a full capcity magazine for his Glock or AK he thought that there was no danger of his home being raided. It all depends on whose ox is being gored that day.

Yeah, no argument here. I had a completely clear conscience (in terms of not worrying about cops at my door) until they started banning all my toys.

As far as I know, I dont associate with any drug users or sellers, so the WoD was never really a personal concern for me. Yeah, I cared about it in an abstract sort of way because I knew it was wrong, but until the past decade or so I never seriously contemplated the idea of cops wanting to kick in my door.

I also agree that the problem is 100 percent due to the WoD. We wouldnt even be having these stupd arguments if police hadnt become so obsessed with preventing people from flushing evidence, a behavior pretty much confined to drug crimes.

I also think the 40 more years estimate is probably reasonable. A major source of frustration for me, because I realize that every day the WoD/Terror/next LE fad continues, we extinguish more and more of the Bill of Rights.

Art Eatman
April 7, 2006, 12:01 AM
"The police are largely immune to lawsuits for damages "

I plead a certain amount of ignorance, but I have read of some rather large cash settlements after "wrong address" folks were killed by police. Mostly California.

Again, if the local citizenry puts the heat on the local elected officials, there is less likely to be a severe problem. Griping about the police doesn't do the job. For that, I guess the problem would be in persuading the "good people" of a city that THEY could be living at that wrong address...

Art

wheelgunslinger
April 7, 2006, 12:04 AM
This is key:

JeffWhite wrote: "It was the war on drugs that started us down this road, and only the end of the war on drugs will stop it."

That's a very good point. We need to treat the problem and not the symptoms.

Jeff White
April 7, 2006, 12:14 AM
Wheelgunslinger said;
It just seems ridiculous that in our country cops in SWAT gear can bust in with no knock warrants, hog tie citizens, ransack their home, then leave without an apology. All with impunity.

While one is too many, how many mistaken address warrants do you think are served every year? I don't have any idea, but when you compare it to the number of successful warrants that are served it's got to be a very tiny percentage.

I do think that the victims should be entitled to compensation if a mistake is made.

Just out of curiosity Jeff, pretend you aren't a LEO and imagine what it would be like to have SWAT break in to your home in the wee hours. Or worse, consider that you know on an academic level that no-knocks can happen where you live. Would a bump in the night be met with quick decisive measures, or would you second guess it thinking maybe it's SWAT coming in to your Jungle Room™ (shameless Elvis plug) and be less decisive?

No Knock warrants are almost impossible to obtain around here. I don't associate with the kind of people I serve warrants on, I don't do anything that would give anyone investigating me probable cause to get a warrant, and I don't live near anyone who does.

I am not quick enough to wake from sleep and execute my repel boarders drill before I would be blinking my eyes in the light of their SureFires. There are very few people who could do that. It would be possible to fortify a home enough and stand watch and take other measures, but I'm not in a combat zone and don't really care to live like I'm in one.

And would that lack of decisiveness be enough to put your life at risk? Or, would you just whip out the AR or whatever you carry from the squad car to the house at night, and start slicing the pie through your home in search of the poor dumb guy who broke in to your home?
Seriously, Jeff, what would you do?

Seriously, there is no time for that kind of foolishness. The SWAT team is coming equipped with the tools necessary to breach your door and be standing over your bed in seconds. Unless you lived in a large mansion and there was a hundred or so yards worth of hallways and other doors to breach before they got to you, it will take less then 5 seconds from the time your door is breached to the officers holding you at gunpoint. Obstacles aren't going to slow them down much, there are contingency plans for that. I know it isn't nearly as cute coming from me as when Geri Ryan used to say it but; Resistance really is futile.

'm deeply offended by the idea that the police can execute such warrants on the public. I'm just confused by what course of action to take with this. Do I exercise my right to defend my home, or do I always assume that anyone bumping around might be SWAT, BATF, or Delta Force? Having had my apartment searched by BATF years back, I know this isn't ridiculous. (They were looking for the ATlanta bomber, before they fingered Rudolph.)

When the BATFE searched your apartment, did they show up in the dead of night and break down your door, or did they drop by and knock on your door and present you with a warrant? If they actually felt they needed to use force to serve the warrant, then you already know what I posted above. If they just knocked on your door, then you probably don't.

The answer lies in ending the war on drugs. It's not going to be a quick fix, but as long as the public supports the war on drugs, they are going to support giving the state whatever tools they think they need to fight it.

Jeff

beerslurpy
April 7, 2006, 01:01 AM
Art, "largely immune" is completely compatible with wrongful death lawsuits. This is because wrongful deaths are obviously beyond the bounds of qualified immunity. But there is an enormous range of behavior that is incredibly demeaning and terrifying that DOESNT fall outside of qualified immunity.

If I kicked in your door at 3AM and tied you up so I could search for drugs, would I need to kill or severely maim you to be exposed to a lawsuit or a criminal sanction? If I was a cop, the answer is usually yes.

Sometimes the cops will do a raid on someone rich or important (like a mayor or judge) and a swarm of lawyers will descend to scrutinize every aspect of the warrant and to exhaustively interview the cops. An approach like this can sometimes result in some sort of error being found in the warrant or the conduct of the officers that sets them outside qualified immunity, opening them and the town to mondo lawsuits.

But remember that the average person having their door kicked in (whether right address or wrong) doesnt have access to a team of lawyers and doesnt know the local powers that be. They are going to be told to walk it off and be grateful they werent prosecuted.

Robert Hairless
April 7, 2006, 04:29 AM
Well, I think that the S.W.A.T. team leader certainly should apologize when his team breaks into the wrong person's home and subjects that person to inconvenience or death. The lack of an apology in such situations is just plain bad manners on the part of those S.W.A.T. teams and a sure sign of poor upbringing by their parents. That's what I think.

I also think that citizens should send the local police chiefs a nice note asking them to require all S.W.A.T. team members to take an etiquette course in how to behave after tyrannizing citizens or killing them by mistake, with periodic refreshers. We all know that mistakes happen, so that's not the real point here, but we certainly can expect civilized apologies when they happen.

Since mistakes like these do seem to happen from time to time, perhaps Hallmark or some other enterprising company could introduce a line of greeting cards for such occasions.

For example, one S.W.A.T. greeting card might show a rueful looking S.W.A.T. team--nicely hooded, of course--and be captioned "Hey, nice to bump into you the other night. Sorry you're dead."

Another S.W.A.T. greeting card might show a closeup of a team member winking through his hood and say "Thanks for the great look we had at your wife or girl friend the other night, you lucky dog!"

Or how about a greeting card with a cute kid holding a teddy bear and a caption such as "At least your kids will remember us for a long time."

Lots of possibilities here in an expanding market.

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 07:51 AM
It was the war on drugs that started us down this road, and only the end of the war on drugs will stop it.What did Waco and Ruby Ridge have to do with drugs?

The proper remedy is in the courts or in the legislature.Been tried. Doesn't work.

First off, if the SWAT team has any inkling of what they are about, you will have many more dead homeowners then you will SWAT cops.The "Don't do it, else you will end up dead" argument doesn't faze us patriots, Jeff. In the fight for liberty, people will end up dead. It's par for the course. As Thomas Jefferson once quipped:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

So tell me again why I shouldn't shoot the JBTs? You’ll need to come up with a more convincing argument than "You might die."

wheelgunslinger
April 7, 2006, 07:58 AM
Thanks for the response, JeffWhite.
You're right. The difference between SWAT and an intruder is pretty large in terms of how it goes down. I'm sure I'd be looking into the tac lights before I could move too, as would Mrs. Wheelgunslinger.
I just can't get over how Draconian the no knocks are.
When the ATF searched my place, they showed up sporting mullets and body armor on the front yard, huddled up for about 10 minutes and then came and knocked on the door. No busting in during the middle of the night.
However, in the wake of waco™, it was really unsettling to have these guys in my home wearing body armor going through my stuff. They found a survival knife, folding shovel, and confiscated both. My brother lived with me at the time and had just been released from Prison. They weren't after me.

I agree though. Let's end this cockamamie war on drugs. We can get a lot of people out of prison who don't belong there, and focus on jailing the ones that do.
*my brother did not go to Federal Prison for drug related charges.

molonlabe
April 7, 2006, 08:18 AM
From another thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2368628&postcount=10


I hope if this ever happens to me I am too sleepy to reach for the 38 at our bedside. Otherwise both my wife and I will end up in pine boxes. What people are going to stay up 25/7 with AP's and slugs???

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 08:22 AM
Let's end this cockamamie war on drugs.Amen to that. Agree 100%.

But... be careful what you ask for; it might come true. If the War on Some Drugs™ ended, do you think the government will lay off thousands of DEA agents? Do you think LE funding will be cut? Yea, right. :rolleyes: Funding will remain the same, and agents will be reassigned to other departments. Like the BATFE.

In other words, it is entirely possible that ending the War on Some Drugs™ will increase enforcement in other areas. One of which is the enforcement of unlawful/unconstitutional gun laws.

DunedinDragon
April 7, 2006, 08:52 AM
The issue here is one of accountability, and generally speaking there is no REAL accountability for inept or inappropriate behaviors on the part of lawmakers, judges and law enforcement. A cash award in civil court is not a huge impediment to the individual officers making the mistake of breaking into the wrong house. Prosecution for burglary is.

Prosecution, not financial reward, is the key to stopping bad behaviors. Even people like Martha Stewart have had to learn that.

In the meantime:

Jeff White wrote:
While one is too many, how many mistaken address warrants do you think are served every year? I don't have any idea, but when you compare it to the number of successful warrants that are served it's got to be a very tiny percentage.

How many drunk drivers get to their destinations without causing a wreck or hurting anyone? Does that mean we don't need to legislate an answer to it?


No Knock warrants are almost impossible to obtain around here. I don't associate with the kind of people I serve warrants on, I don't do anything that would give anyone investigating me probable cause to get a warrant, and I don't live near anyone who does.

..and probably neither did the person this post was originally referencing. I guess that didn't help HIM???

The answer lies in ending the war on drugs. It's not going to be a quick fix, but as long as the public supports the war on drugs, they are going to support giving the state whatever tools they think they need to fight it.

Here, I totally agree with you..but I think law enforcent has been less than creative in approaching how to deal with it, and they have gotten far to enamoured with militaristic approaches over good, and less sexy, police work.

This is not an issue of de-criminalizing drugs and aggravating problems already caused by alcoholics. But this is an issue of fundamental "check and balance" legislating that this country is founded on. We keep the pendulum in check by noting when things have gotten out of whack and legislating in such a way as to bring it back into balance. Right now the militarization of law enforcement has gone too far, and needs to be brought back into balance.

Are there alternatives to no knock warrants? I suspect if you looked at most of the cases you would find there are. Spending the time to gather real, direct probably cause evidence through surveillence rather than heresay or witness statements, waiting until the house is empty and/or detaining the suspect when they are out of the house isn't as sexy as breaking in in the middle of the night with super kewl tactical gear, but it's a lot safer, less expensive, and less prone to disasterous results...not to mention more protective of innocent people's civil rights.

Baron Holbach4
April 7, 2006, 09:06 AM
This is not an issue of de-criminalizing drugs and aggravating problems already caused by alcoholics.

What? No lessons learned from an earlier national Prohibition (18th Amendment)?

Master Blaster
April 7, 2006, 09:16 AM
Spending the time to gather real, direct probably cause evidence through surveillence rather than heresay or witness statements, waiting until the house is empty and/or detaining the suspect when they are out of the house isn't as sexy as breaking in in the middle of the night with super kewl tactical gear, but it's a lot safer, less expensive, and less prone to disasterous results...not to mention more protective of innocent people's civil rights.

+1 They could have arrested David Koresh while he was in town buying supplies, or going for his morning walk. After they arrested him two agents could have politely gone to the front door, knocked and presented a search warrant. Then they could have brought in the search team, all nice and friendly like. If they had they would not have found any machineguns, cause there weren't any to start with. And all of those men women and children would still be alive today.

Instead they did an armed dynamic entry on folks who wer paranoid and heavily armed. And of course we all know the outcome of that tactic.
As far as the flushing of drug evidence goes, a toilet uses 4-6 gallons of water, and if you lift the sanitary sewer lid in the street you can see the pipe... I'l leave it at that.:)

My wife and I, after reading about a couple of armed home invasions and murders by crimminals in our area decided to conduct a couple of drills. We have an alarm system and a dog. We also have a gate at the top of our stairs and a reinforced front door.

All I can say is that I can get my loaded saiga .308 rifle out and pointed at chest level for the top of the stairs in 3 seconds. It will take an intruder more than that to figure out how to open the gate at the top of the stairs.

Here is an example of the Jury siding with a Homeowner who shot official intruders:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=179375&highlight=Florida+officer+shoot

saltydog
April 7, 2006, 09:36 AM
Who do we, as American people, complain about this problem to? The Republicans or the Democrats? Were screwed!:barf:

ARTiger
April 7, 2006, 09:38 AM
I have some more information on the original event which caused me to post this. . . . - Our corporate attorney has found a lawyer in the area where this happened willing to take on a lawsuit. Also, to add insult to injury, the guy's apartment complex is charging him for repair to the door and frame which was busted by the police ( who by the way are refusing to even consider paying for the damage they caused in searching the apartment or the door.)

They did receive a call from the public relations area of the police department apoligizing for the incident - that's who he asked about payment for the damage and was told that it was against the policy of the department to pay unless ordered to by a court. They still haven't told him who/what they were searching for or why his apartment was selected to be raided. The people in our office there took up a collection and so far have raised over $400 to assist. I am trying to get our company to match whatever they raise. Apparently a great deal of damage was done in the apartment search.

The more I learn about this, the more furious I get! I am thinking how I would feel if this had happened to my home, how scared my kids woud have been, etc. Also there's just a fundamental unfairness to this all - Does being a 23 year old immigrant office courier living in a poor neighborhood give this guy any less rights that say I would get as a 42 year old executive living in a gated golf course suburb? You betcha is does. I had never thought about things on those terms - naive I guess, but this has been a wake up call for certain.

DunedinDragon
April 7, 2006, 10:19 AM
Is there any way to get some media attention on this by calling local radio, TV, or newspapers? Since this hits very close to home (I'm in Florida as well) I'd love to do whatever I can do in terms of letter writing or anything else that could be useful.

Personally I could see letters to media as well as letters/calls to local prosecutors, lawmakers, ACLU, FBI, State Department for civil rights violations etc. The only way to start the ball rolling is to apply some uncomfortable heat.

Big Gay Al
April 7, 2006, 10:37 AM
Maybe criminals should just start yelling "police!" and we have to comply with them?
Too late, it's already been done. I forget where, but I recall a few years ago that some criminals did just that. They'd knock on the door, shouting "Police!", bust in, tie up everyone and clean them out. Unfortunately, I forget where this was happening, but I think it was a large metro area.

Hawkmoon
April 7, 2006, 10:39 AM
No Knock warrants are almost impossible to obtain around here. I don't associate with the kind of people I serve warrants on, I don't do anything that would give anyone investigating me probable cause to get a warrant, and I don't live near anyone who does.
I don't associate with such folks either, Jeff, nor do I engage in any illegal activities. But the problem is ... that doesn't in any way protect or help you when the doofus squad has a warrant for 239 Springvale Avenue and they come pounding on your door (239 Springdale Road) at oh-dark-thirty. If you are the object of a wrong address warrant "service," it doesn't matter if you're the archbishop ... you're going to get rousted, your house is going to get trashed, and then when they finally realize they screwed up ... they just walk out.

No knocks should not be difficult to obtain -- they should be impossible.

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 11:14 AM
No knocks should not be difficult to obtain -- they should be impossible.+1.

But the anti-liberty crowd bleats:

"We need no-knock warrants! They make us safer! They lower crime! They improve conviction rates!"

To which I respond:

I don't care if they make us "safer." I don't care if they "lower crime." I would rather have more crime and more liberty vs. less crime and less liberty.

Others agree:

I much prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. - Thomas Jefferson

Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

"Necessity" is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

TheEgg
April 7, 2006, 11:59 AM
The cops should not be the target, the politicians should be.

Cops are just hired ---- "help" ------ that will do pretty much whatever they are ordered to, as long as it is 'legal'.

We have to talk to the people who make it 'legal' to do these things.

benEzra
April 7, 2006, 12:01 PM
While one is too many, how many mistaken address warrants do you think are served every year? I don't have any idea, but when you compare it to the number of successful warrants that are served it's got to be a very tiny percentage.

I do think that the victims should be entitled to compensation if a mistake is made.
I agree (and the compensation should be LARGE, since the victims' lives were put in jeopardy byt ). I also think the victims should be immune from prosecution if they are raided by mistake and defend themselves on the assumption that they are the object of a home invasion. The exclusionary rule (or full immunity) should also apply to anything the police run across if they didn't have a warrant for that house.

Art Eatman
April 7, 2006, 12:18 PM
We know that a loud explosion of voices against or in favor of some Congressional action works: Recall the threads here about Dubai and the ports deal.

The issue then becomes one of how we get Congressional and/or legislative attention.

The problem of creating this accountabilty is that of getting the population at large to be aware that, "Hey, this could happen to ME!"

That is has not happened is due to the rarity of the mistakes. WE are aware of such events, but the public at large is not.

So far as I understand the politics of numbers of voters, only organized groups can accomplish much--as evidenced by the various efforts to get passage of CHL laws. The same sorts of actions need to be taken at the local level, on a city-by-city basis--and then on to the legislatures.

Griping about it here, with mostly name-calling against cops, ain't gonna do any good. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Art

NoPhilly
April 7, 2006, 12:52 PM
:fire:

It's pure B.S. that a warrant can be executed on the wrong person, and that person is held liable for any and all damages. This is so contradictory to the existing laws in this country, as well as to basic uncommon sense.

Every attempt to justify this sort of thing only paves the way for the future degradation of citizen's rights.

Pure B.S.

Kim
April 7, 2006, 01:01 PM
Give me a break on the statement that police are only
"hired help". Really. Are they not professionals that take an oath. They themselves could mount a big movement to stop this kind of tactic. They could say it is unethical and unsafe and aganist their oath. They could do this but they wont. Just like the good police stand behind politicians who at politcal rallies and press releases screaming for more gun control. The could get their so loved Unions to take a stand. But again they won't and there is the BIG PROBLEM.

seeker_two
April 7, 2006, 01:15 PM
I know it isn't nearly as cute coming from me as when Geri Ryan used to say it but; Resistance really is futile.

True...but Jeri Ryan would sound a lot sexier saying, "Turnabout is fair play"...

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/voy-193-seven-of-nine-wielding/240x320.jpg

Robert Hairless
April 7, 2006, 01:31 PM
Many kinds of behavior are illegal unless franchised by governments. Breaking into people's homes is just one such behavior. It's illegal for ordinary citizens to break into someone's home, restrain its occupants, and confiscate or destroy its contents. But it's legal for law enforcement to do the same things. Law enforcement protects people from having their homes broken into, their occupants restrained, and their contents confiscated or destroyed by criminals.

This situation becomes much clearer when we understand that law enforcement is charged with reducing serious problems created for society by drug dealers. Drug dealers sell drugs to people who become so seriously addicted that they will do anything to obtain money for purchasing drugs--including breaking into peoples homes, restraining their occupants, and confiscating or destroying their contents.

When there are instances (apparently much more frequent than might appear) in which law enforcement mistakenly breaks into the home of someone who is not a drug dealer, restrains its occupants, and confiscates or destroys its contents there might seem to be no difference between criminals and law enforcement. But there is a difference. When criminals are caught doing such things they sometimes are punished and sometimes even restrained from repeating those activities for a time. Law enforcement is not punished and is encouraged to go on with its work.

There are good reasons for that difference. One, of course, is that taxpayer money goes to pay law enforcment. Criminals, however, must work on a more entrepreneurial basis and assume complete responsibility for their own support. Criminals also don't get badges, weapons, or vehicles supplied at taxpayer expense, and are required to steal them. Of course law enforcement may confiscate for its own use the vehicles, homes, and other property owned by citizens accused of certain crimes, so I suppose there might not be too much difference between the entrepreneurship of criminals and law enforcement, but the theory is sound anyway.

The application of these principles is much more widespread than might appear if we focus only on no-knock "warrants" and police mistakes in applying them. For example, it's illegal for criminals to steal other people's identities but it's legal for law enforcement to do so, at least in Ohio and perhaps in other states too. Here's an instance in which Ohio's liquor control agents did it to drive a club out of business, from The Columbus Dispatch: (http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/04/10/20050410-A1-02.html)


Woman’s identity taken by state agents
Strip-club sting was legal, Miami County official says
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Bill Bush THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Authorities gave Michelle Szuhay another woman’s identity to use while undercover.

Haley Dawson has never been a stripper.

But Ohio liquor-control agents took her identity and gave it to a 22-year-old college student who they had recruited to work undercover as a nude dancer.

As part of an investigation that resulted in nothing more than misdemeanor charges, police paid University of Dayton criminal-justice student Michelle Szuhay $100 a night to take it all off in early 2003 — as liquor-control officers drank beer and watched in the audience for three months, court papers show.

Other officers watched her strip on the Internet, using an account created under the identity of a dead man.

The officers did all this by using Dawson’s driver’s license and Social Security number to hide Szuhay’s identity while she worked at the targeted strip club, the now-closed Total Xposure in Troy.

To Dawson’s father, David Dawson, "It certainly looks like identity theft."

But it’s not, said Miami County Prosecutor Gary Nasal.

Pointing to a 2002 change in Ohio’s law aimed at fighting identity theft, Nasal said police are allowed to assume anyone’s identity as long as it’s part of an investigation.

"I don’t know much about law, but I would say that’s just baloney," said David Dawson, who lives part of the year in Columbus. He is the brother of Mike Dawson, the chief policy adviser to U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine.

Ohio Rep. Jim Hughes, the Columbus Republican who sponsored the change, also disagrees with Nasal, as do the American Civil Liberties Union and a lobbyist who pushed for the legal change.

"It was not intended for that, I can tell you that," Hughes said.

The law was changed to help solve credit-card fraud and other identitytheft crimes, said John Van Dorn, lobbyist for HSBC North America, one of the banks that championed the change.

As with any form of identity theft, the consequences could have been "enormous" to Haley Dawson, said Jeff Gamso, legal director of the Ohio ACLU.

"What (lawmakers) didn’t mean is that the police could actually engage in identy theft," Gamso said. "Anybody who gave it a moment’s thought would know that they didn’t mean that.

"And that’s exactly what they did (to Haley Dawson), and if they’re doing that, it’s an outrage. What a gross invasion of privacy by the government."

The state agency that oversees the liquor-control agents who gave Haley Dawson’s driver’s license to the Troy police now is investigating the situation, which they became aware of Thursday from The Dispatch.

"There is not a policy from our division that says that we have the latitude" to pose as a real person, said Richard Cologie, assistant agent in charge with the Ohio Investigative Unit’s central office. The unit is a part of the Ohio Department of Public Safety.

It is unclear how liquor-control agents — sworn law-enforcement officers who investigate illegal drinking activity — obtained Haley Dawson’s license, Cologie said. Although these agents work to enforce Ohio’s liquor laws, they are separate from the Department of Commerce’s Division of Liquor Control, which licenses businesses that sell alcohol.

Haley Dawson, 26, could not be reached. Her father said she now lives in Cincinnati and did not want to comment for this story.

Szuhay, reached at her home in the Cleveland suburb of North Olmsted, also declined to comment.

Totally exposed


Miami County Prosecutor Nasal acknowledged Dawson could have suffered tax or other problems because her identity was used.

He called it a "screw-up," but he made no apologies for the lengths that he, police and liquor-control agents went to in shutting down Total Xposure, long a thorn in the side of officials in Troy, a 22,000-resident city north of Dayton.

The strip joint billed itself as a private club where patrons brought their own alcohol and paid a fee to have it served to them. Ohio doesn’t allow clubs to sell alcohol if dancers strip naked.

Police thought Total Xposure was linked to drug trafficking and prostitution — charges which the investigation could not prove, Nasal acknowledged.

The only allegations that stuck were two misdemeanor charges of furnishing alcohol without a permit, which resulted in a $200 fine, and a civil-nuisance charge that shut the club for one year and led to the confiscation of its property.

In order to avoid further charges, the club owners agreed to pay $15,000 to the city and state and leave Miami County — Nasal’s goal from the start. That put the entire case to rest at the end of 2003.

"I don’t apologize for the investigation and the conduct," Nasal said. "The result speaks for itself."

Nasal said it’s easy to look back now and assume he could have achieved the same result without the assistance of an undercover stripper.

"This kind of thing is the type of thing that you only get one shot at," Nasal said. "So you had better do your investigation right from the start."

However, the Troy police said Szuhay almost cost them the investigation when she befriended club employees and began hanging out with them after hours — using Haley Dawson’s driver’s license to be served at bars.

Szuhay was charged by Troy police with perjury and obstructing justice in the case, but the charges were dismissed.

The perjury charge related to an accusation that she lied during her testimony by saying she wasn’t wearing a wig; she was. The obstruction charge stemmed from her associating with club employees during the investigation, said Capt. Chuck Adams, of the Troy Police Department.

She stripped at Total Xposure from February to May 2003 — always under the watchful eyes of liquor-control agents and private investigators in the audience.

Troy police officers, including Adams, watched her strip from the police station using an Internet subscription to the club that they had purchased under the name of a dead man, Adams said.

Police think that also was legal, he said.

Liquor-control agents were sent into the club to purchase private "girl-on-girl" dances; some officials thought those dances were illegal, according to a deposition by Diane Corey, the Dayton-based boss of the agents involved.

Hidden work


The life that Szuhay, now 24, assumed as "Haley Dawson" was very different from the one she portrays of her real self on the University of Dayton’s Web site.

There, she posted a video of herself describing how much she was learning during an unpaid internship for the U.S. Marshals Service. She also posted photos of her paid security internship with the NASA Glenn Research Center near Cleveland.

Szuhay had aspirations of becoming a police officer, Adams said.

She had worked undercover and even stripped before, he said, but he thinks that she started having second thoughts about this mission — especially as its conclusion and a very public trial neared.

"Watching her dance was quite different than the other girls," Adams said. "She was doing some things I think she was ashamed of. . . . I think it was more about what she thought her family would think, and her dad in particular.

"We told her it would almost be a miracle that people would not learn her true identity."

Adams said police were unaware until this week that Szuhay’s obstruction of justice charge had been dismissed — apparently because a police officer failed to show up at a hearing. Troy police and Nasal plan to refile it, Adams said.

"There were numerous meetings — police department, myself and her — where it was explained that the only thing that we wanted her to do was go in, observe and tell us the truth," Nasal said. "I guess the bottom line is we found her difficult to handle."

Szuhay "may have been of tender years," but Nasal has no sympathy for her, he said.

"She sold herself to us as a very serious, confidential informant."

lostone1413
April 7, 2006, 01:44 PM
Remember years ago before the LE were thugs for the Elite. Seems we use to call them peace officers then. The way the country was setup the LE as big and powerfull as they have become would be unconstitutional

Sam
April 7, 2006, 01:46 PM
If you think the Congresscritter is responsive to the will of the people, look at the caprine fornication session going on over unlawful entry into the United States.
The entire concept of a police agency "mistakenly" attacking the wrong place is pure idiocy. It can only happen through negligence. If they are working so hard to train thier paramilitary operators and prepare their operation, getting the layout, even just catfooting up to get in position, then the failure to notice they are at the wrong address is just pure unadulterated incompetance. Open the eyeballs and look for the number and the street sign. With all those millions in federal money financing the operation of our police departments, they can afford $50 dollars to have someone walk by in civillian clothes and look at the number painted on the house. As a matter of fact have every member of the raid team walk by and verify that they are at the right place since each should be made to bear the cost of a "mistake".

Negligence means damages and it justifies warding off intruders of any type with any force necessary and soverign immunity be damned. Either the police are professional and do not act negligently or they are incompetant and are subjected to the full weight of the law.
If you offer violence to a citizen going about his lawful business you are the party in the wrong, PERIOD. You serve a writ on the wrong place and get whacked, it is your problem and the homeowner or his surviving kin better own your town and your house, and your car and your bass boat and your bowling ball and golf clubs afterwards. You want to make sure that a righteous citizen doesn't shoot you coming through his door or bedroom window? Take a drive down the street in an unmarked and check the address.

Now go ahead and lock down the thread if it's too hot for the delicate sensibilities of the board.

Sam

jondar
April 7, 2006, 02:16 PM
Thank the stars we can do it in a civilized manner here. I was lying on the floor watching TV. The phone rang.:

Mr. ____?

"Yes."

"This is the Hamilton County Sheriff's dispatcher speaking. There are two deputy sheriffs in your driveway at this time. Would you please go out into your driveway and speak with them?

"Of course."

"And sir, if you would, would you please have your hands in plain view?"

"Of course."

Ten minutes later the deputies were gone, I was back watching TV having an increased respect for the law enforcement agencies here where I live.

rock jock
April 7, 2006, 02:21 PM
Lots of details in this account are questionable, including the statement that the victim could not seek resolution in civil court. If you believe that, you'll believe anything, which apparently is the case.

Avenger29
April 7, 2006, 03:28 PM
I know that I have no possible way to defend myself against the forces of the government- they are just too powerful. There are only TWO ways to solve todays problem- making everyone aware of the problems and going to the polls and voting for change, or by making every citizen aware of the problem and a full scale revolution. A lone man or a small group does not stand a chance agiainst the government. I doubt even the whole THR membership, armed, could stop the government for long. Today's majority of citizens are too dumb and do not care about changing the political situation or there rights, so long as they have their entertainment and other trinkets. Until this changes- and it does not look like soon- there will be no change and our rights will decrease- one, by one, by one- until there are no more rights. Until the actors and other famous people that are idolized today are told to shut the hell up and disappear from the public eye, and role models and heros such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington,and John Locke come back into the public eye- there will be no change.

Phetro
April 7, 2006, 04:01 PM
No-knock warrants are a disease in and of themselves, but they are also a symptom of a more serious disease: the growing public toleration of an increasingly bold and arrogant police state and government.

Obviously voting for the Two-Faced Party (that's Rs and Ds) isn't cutting it. Every freedom we have lost has been gleefully stomped on by one or the other. One leaves, the other takes his place, only to confiscate a different set of freedoms.

The end result of their betrayal is all of our liberty gone, and government becoming all-powerful. Is that what anyone wants? I don't think so (politicians excluded).

You can't change a system by working within its own self-preserving structure, so no matter who you vote for, you're screwed. Vote for a third party: the more votes they get, the more public acceptance they get down the road, and the more likely they are to get elected in the long, long run. It may be a long time, but it's better than never getting your liberty back and losing that you still have, which is what's going to happen if people won't commit themselves totally to government overhaul and removal of the Two-Faced Party from office.

In the end, however, Jefferson's tree may have to be fed its natural manure again, as is necessary from time to time...

seeker_two
April 7, 2006, 07:01 PM
As part of an investigation that resulted in nothing more than misdemeanor charges, police paid University of Dayton criminal-justice student Michelle Szuhay $100 a night to take it all off in early 2003 — as liquor-control officers drank beer and watched in the audience for three months, court papers show.


The life that Szuhay, now 24, assumed as "Haley Dawson" was very different from the one she portrays of her real self on the University of Dayton’s Web site.

There, she posted a video of herself describing how much she was learning during an unpaid internship for the U.S. Marshals Service. She also posted photos of her paid security internship with the NASA Glenn Research Center near Cleveland.


http://wizbangblog.com/images/2005/michelle_szuhay.jpg


Our tax dollars well spent.... :scrutiny:

Molon Labe
April 7, 2006, 08:32 PM
The issue then becomes one of how we get Congressional and/or legislative attention.Wrong again, Art.

The issue becomes how well I can focus on my front sight while flash bangs are going off.

Hawkmoon
April 7, 2006, 09:59 PM
Thank the stars we can do it in a civilized manner here. I was lying on the floor watching TV. The phone rang.:

Mr. ____?

"Yes."

"This is the Hamilton County Sheriff's dispatcher speaking. There are two deputy sheriffs in your driveway at this time. Would you please go out into your driveway and speak with them?

"Of course."

"And sir, if you would, would you please have your hands in plain view?"

"Of course."

Ten minutes later the deputies were gone, I was back watching TV having an increased respect for the law enforcement agencies here where I live.
Huh.

We're equally civilized here, but totally incompetent.

Not too long ago I received such a call from the police dispatcher. She told me there were officers at the gate and if I didn't restrain my dogs immediately, they would be shot.

Problem #1: I have no gate.

Prombelm #2: I have no dogs.

Problem #3: I looked out the window and there were no police officers in the driveway.

The officers were a mile away, at the home of an unrelated deadbeat who happens to share the same last name and who has an unlisted telephone number ... so the dumb bunny dispatcher just called me because she "assumed" that there could only be one family with that name on my street. Never mind that the house numbers aren't even close, never mind that the first names aren't even close. Worse yet, it took me a good ten minutes to convince her she had [to use acceptable terminology] "committed an error."

This is in a small town, where many of the officers actually know me.

The worst part is -- the same damned thing has happened THREE TIMES!

NukemJim
April 8, 2006, 01:12 AM
Not trying to hijack this thread but as regards the use of "No Knock" warrants due to drug raids one LEO that I used to chat with maintains that if they people in the apartment/house could get rid of the drugs with one flush that it was not worth the time/risk to do a "No Knock" warrant. That such warrants should only be used for large scale dealors, not they dealor that only had a small amount. He also stated that just knocking on the door of a dealor and having them flush the toilet repeatedly could drive them out of business.:evil:

I am NOT a LEO and cannot vouch for the accuracy of the above. ( For example I have no idea what volume of drugs you can flush down the toilet without the toilet getting "plugged" or how much such drugs would be worth. But I did find it an interesting point of view.

Can/Will any LEOs comment on the above ?

NukemJim

Brett Bellmore
April 8, 2006, 09:02 AM
The toilet flush business is a lousy excuse. Most people don't have toilets that dump directly into an incinerator, after all. It would be relatively straightforward to plug the house's sewer connection before knocking on the door. In my case, even that wouldn't be necessary, since I have a septic tank and field.

And if you're worried about the threat to the cops if you just knock on the door and give people time to respond, there are robots to deal with that, probably more cheaply than maintaining a swat team.

No, about the only situationt that actually calls for no-knock is a hostage crisis, and those are remarkably rare.

But plumbers and robots aren't cool.:rolleyes:

Art Eatman
April 8, 2006, 09:39 AM
Molon Labe, I'd say that your issue has you in serous trouble. I'd imagine that training against flashbangs is rather difficult. It's all well and good to speak of what YOU would do. Only political action will prevent the event from occuring in the first place; it was political action that created the no-knock deal.

U.S. AG John Mitchell first got it through Congress as part of the then-newly-named "War On Drugs". Political action.

Art

Sam
April 8, 2006, 10:48 AM
Come on Art, W
We were doing that long before John Mitchell formalized it and I suspect you are old enough to know first hand.
I just managed to learn it was wrong without getting my head blown off.

It would behoove the rest of the police in the country to do the same.
Probably wouldn't hurt if they read the Constitution either.

The time for sensible action from the legislatures is long past, the nation coasting if you will, between extremes. We already have laws against anything you can imagine, all passed for PR effect and none properly enforced or respected.

Sam

Baron Holbach4
April 8, 2006, 01:25 PM
We were doing that long before John Mitchell formalized it. . .

Eliot Ness and the Prohibition wars come to mind.

Sam
April 8, 2006, 02:08 PM
Baron Holbach4,
I was remembering more like Detriot in the 70's.

No knock entry, warranted or not has been going on for a long time.
They are almost guaranteed to provoke a violent response and that is a bad thing. Unless you can camp out on the place around the clock for a week you never know who is there, what they are doing and how you will be received.
You will never know about the integrity of the guy running the investigation, the informants he used or the judge that signed the writ.

Better to grab all of your bad actors off the streets and worry about searching later on when you have some leisure time to do it without histrionics and troops. Even that presupposes that you have bright people who can follow orders, exercise good judgement and stay on the job unlike some folk we know.

Sam

Autolycus
April 8, 2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by ElTacoGrande
Maybe criminals should just start yelling "police!" and we have to comply with them?

They already are. And they got the courts to back them up.

Its nice to know that our police force can kick my door in while armed to the teeth. Then when they find out they have the wrong house (this is after destroying it) they can merrily move along and I am not allowed to do anything about that. Makes me proud to be an American.

Fastlane
April 8, 2006, 06:28 PM
I don't post much because I'm not much of a word smith. But I will say this, I am a old man who hurts a lot at night, don't sleep worth a ***, don't have any kids in the house so I keep a loaded 870 around me all the time. Someone kicks my door down at the wrong time it could be very bad for all. But like I said I'm old and I hurt so I don't realy give much of a **** anymore. And the powers that be can't take this post anyway they like.

If you enjoyed reading about "No Knock Warrants" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!