SCOTUS: Police don't have to knock, justices say

[NineseveN]

First:

Jeff White, I suggest you go back and read Michael Courtney’s post, he made it very clear that he wasn’t talking about breaking the law and killing people that one knows to be cops, he specifically stated that;

“Since they are not acting in line with the law, it might be reasonable to conclude that they are not really government agents, in spite of whatever attempts they have made to identify themselves as such.

So what you've got is a bunch of armed thugs pretending to be cops, invading your home, and taking whatever they want. It would be legal to respond as a reasonable man as allowed by the laws of your state.”

And I agree, if you have no reason to suspect that they are police officers, armed intruders in your home should be dealt with according to your own moral judgement. It comes back down to a reasonable man standard. I hope you misread his post, it’s not like you to twist someone’s words and insinuate that they’re advocating an illegal act in order to discredit someone.


Beerslurpy:

I agree, those remarks are very encouraging; unfortunately, we’ll have to take a wait and see approach to find out how things truly pan out in the real world.

To me, the troubling things about this ruling are twofold:

(1) The justices acknowledge the search was unlawful, but state the fruit of an unlawful search can be presented in court, under the rationale that if they had bothered to follow the terms of the warrant, the result would have been the same. Reductio ad absurdum, one could argue with equal seriousness (and equal logic) that the fruit of a warrantless search can be presented in court, since if the police had bothered to get a warrant, the result would have been the same.

(2) It seems to remove the last vestige of giving the accused the opportunity to comply before having his/her door kicked in. Remember we are speaking of a routine search warrant here, NOT a no-knock warrant. If the police can show up at my door with a ROUTINE warrant, yell, then kick my door in after 3 seconds and storm the house, how the heck am I supposed to comply with their request to open the door? Under the new rules, they no longer have to give me that opportunity, and 800 years of common law and legal tradition bite the dust.

Agreed, though as Beerslurpy’s post stated, there is a chance that this won’t truly impact anything in the real world, though I personally won’t take a couple of blurbs from cops on the news or in a story as gospel or even representative of the actions of the LEO community as a whole.



cropcirclewalker, I was going to post that exact thing because I thought it was pertinent to the whole Waco side-debate going on, but I didn’t want to derail the thread. It’s a good point of view though, and it does make sense because Ross does know what he’s talking about in regards to the matter. I don’t agree with his entire thesis, but overall it’s pretty spot on IMHO.

 

[Jeff White]

Cropcirclewalker,

This discussion is not about if the BATF had jurisdiction over a cult. It's funny, but thinking back several years to when I read the affidavit I seem to recall something about handgrenade bodies and statements from CI's about loading them and making improvised handgrenades. I also seem to recall that the investigation started because a box broke open in a UPS truck and the driver reported it's contents, which were dummy hand grenage bodies. Making improvised hand grenades most assuredly falls under the National Firearms Act making it BATF's jurisdiction. There was in fact enough probable cause that violations of the National Firearms Act were being committed and that evidence of such violations were to be found in the Branch Dividian Compound that the judge was justified in issuing the warrant.

The crimes that were committed by the government started when the BATF lied to the Army by telling them there was drug operation in the Branch Dividian compound in order to receive training and operational assistance from JTF-6. They compunded after that. But I don't believe any court has found any errors in the preliminary investigation or the issuance of the warrant.

With all due respect to John Ross, Unintended Consequences is a work of fiction that is supposed to entertain. You might also say that it's intended to promote a certain political agenda, but I won't go that far because I don't know what Mr. Ross intended to accomplish with his work. It is not an unbiased well researched account of the debacle at Waco. There is not now and I doubt is there ever will be a complete unbiased account of what really happened. Too much evidence has been destroyed and there are still too many repercussions for people who are involved in the federal government for the participants to tell their story.

NineseveN,
I most assuredly did not misread Michael Courtney's post. When he stated:

“Since they are not acting in line with the law, it might be reasonable to conclude that they are not really government agents, in spite of whatever attempts they have made to identify themselves as such.

He's saying that since you don't meet my personal standard (after all in this day and age everyone on an internet firearms forum is more qualified then an Associate Justice on the USSC to decide what is constitutional and what isn't) for what's constitutional, right or fair, it's ok to shoot them and claim that I didn't believe they were who they said they were as my defense. How is that advocating legal conduct?

ProficientRifleman,
Some background (if not personal then at least well researched) knowledge is necessary so that someone can look past the all the BS and have an intelligent meaningful discussion of a complicated issue. You aren't in a position to state that the Waco Warrant should never have been issued if you aren't aware of the standards required.

I think you're the only participant in this thread who still believes that this decision will eliminate the knock and announce warrant. beerslurpy hit the nail squarely on the head when he stated that one of the big reasons for knock and announce is the safety of the officers.

He's also correct that these rules are a direct result of the failed war on drugs and that decisions like this will continue to be made until we declare victory and end the war on drugs.

The Fourth Amendment is most definately not some quaint anachronism. It is probably one of the most actively debated part of the constitution. Most police departments receive monthly or quarterly updates on cases from all around the country so that we can keep operating within the law. Heck it's spawned it's own branch of the publishing industry to research, write, print and distribute those updates.

As for old policing v. so called new policing, the courts for the most part have greatly expanded privacy rights, more closely defined what is and isn't enough probable cause to issue a warrant, defined the circumstances as to when you can and can't take action more in the past 30 years then at any other time in American history.

Jeff

 

[Old Dog]

Just returned from a few days out of town and am fascinated by a thread filled with so much meaningless analysis of a Supreme Court decision that doesn't really change anything ...

Y'all get so spun up by yet another SCOTUS decision that is basically the product of a bunch of twenty-something clerks who've never even practiced law in this country. Our justices are far too busy writing books and taking all-expense paid trips (the recently retired O'Connor took twenty-eight paid trips in one year alone while publishing three books in a four-year period) to really get involved with interpreting Constitutional issues.

Only one of our justices even writes his own first drafts of opinions (and he's the 86-year old Stevens!) ... the rest have have their personal bunch of kids write their opinions. And yet, we're seeing a Supreme Court with the lightest caseload in the history of the institution (with paid three-months recesses to boot).

And some of you express surprise and discontent with the direction of the Court?

 

[NineseveN]

He's saying that since you don't meet my personal standard (after all in this day and age everyone on an internet firearms forum is more qualified then an Associate Justice on the USSC to decide what is constitutional and what isn't) for what's constitutional, right or fair, it's ok to shoot them and claim that I didn't believe they were who they said they were as my defense. How is that advocating legal conduct?

While I don't wish to put words into someone's mouth, he most certainly is not advocating illegal conduct as I read it.

What he is saying, is that if a group of armed intruders breaks down your door, if you truly do not believe that they are in fact officers of the law, but instead criminals , "it would be legal to respond as a reasonable man as allowed by the laws of your state".

He specifically mentions acting in accordance with the laws in your state.


In PA:
505. Use of force in self-protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--

1. The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
1. to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
2. to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.


2. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
1. the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
2. the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.


3. Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.



>>>>>>>

Unless I know that the guy shouting "police" with the AR-15 that just broke down my door is in fact a police officer, if I fire to protect my life because I fear it is in danger, the only question the courts need to decide is whether or not I truly knew the aggressor was an officer of the law or not and whether my actions conform to the so-called reasonable man standard. I do not engage in illegal conduct nor do I associate with those that do, thus I have no reason to believe that the police would perform such an act at my residence.

I have no duty to retreat under such a circumstance.

I have a right to legally protect my life as long as I conform to the reasonable man standard.

I only need to ascertain whether or not I truly believe that the actor that has broken my door down is in fact a bona-fide police officer.

I do not need to ascertain if the actions of the police officer are legal if I know the actor to be a bona-fide police officer, unless I am in immediate fear for my life and deadly force is justified. The courts would need to sort out whether or not the police were acting within the scope of their official duties and whether or not a true threat to my life existed as I saw it under the reasonable man standard.

If I am sleeping, and my door gets bashed in, if I do not hear the word, "police" or anything to that effect, I can reasonably assume that this is a home invasion and act in accordance with the laws on justified self defense.

If I do hear the words police, but other circumstances convince me that the actors in question are not police officers, I may defend my life accordingly.

The courts will need to decide whether or not I acted within the reasonable man standard and whether or not I knew the police to in fact be police...as side issue for them to ascertain may be whether or not the police were acting within the law during their actions (though that is not a determination that I get to make if I in fact know the actors to be police officers).


If you're suggesting that criminals somehow lack the vocabulary to yell "police", you're completely wrong. I've been witness to thugs saying just that to throw off their intended victims.

If you're suggesting that we should all roll over when someone yells "police" after breaking down your door with no apparent cause or justification to do so and no other apparent or solid indication of their status as officers of the law, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Jeff White

First,

I do not intend to be uncivil in my argument. You seemed to challenge the validity of opinion because I'm not a cop. I will differ with you on that issue.

I do not believe that this one SCOTUS decision changes everything. I do believe that is is an indicator of the trend. The framers of the constitution knew that the way of government is force. They chained the beast of government, or thought they did. I also believe that where the door is open to abuse, abuse will happen...(hence the necessity of the chains). It is just a matter of time. Most Police agencies will continue with their departmental policies and procedures as they have before.

I believe that this ruling shows the trend toward non-exclusionry circumstances. The trend toward more heavy handed tactics will continue. It will grow. This case is one of those pivotal cases which may be called up for precedent.

A final word on Waco...the warrant (will have to find it in my pile of stuff here also) did not say ATF had evidence of the Davidians reactivating hand grenades. It said they had empty grenade bodies (which anyone could have seen at a gun show, attached to a plaque with the old "in case of emergency, pull pin"...a curio, noting more) and they had quatities of gun powder. The warrant said, could be, may be, etc...

By that standard, anyone in the USA who reloads ammunition could be suspected of being a terrorist. He'll have large ammounts (a pound or 3) of gun powder and any available container, which could be construed...etc.

I think before we all cheer and shout hurah(!) that the SCOTUS has ruled one against the bad guys, we should temper our enthusiasm by thinking of what it means for each of us, who may or may never have a warrant served on us, or a family member...or a neighbor...just in case the police get the address wrong. This is why I referrenced Texas law on the matter of excessive force.

No ill will intended.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Yo, Mr. White, not to hijack the string............but

It's funny, but thinking back several years to when I read the affidavit I seem to recall something about handgrenade bodies and statements from CI's about loading them and making improvised handgrenades. I also seem to recall that the investigation started because a box broke open in a UPS truck and the driver reported it's contents, which were dummy hand grenage bodies.

dummy hand grenades are not illegal. I found the warrant on the net, (Ain't it great?)

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html

and the guy who swore out the affidavit made lots of references to dummy this and inert that, and them having machine tools and cardboard tubes but I failed to see any swearing of illegal things. I also saw a bunch of hear say stuff he said about people telling him things that might be illegal, but there were no other sworn statements by them.

If I'da been the judge I would have asked for some more swearing by people who had actually witnessed some wrong doing.

Yes, we all agree that Waco was a Charlie Foxtrot and that the ATF needs to be euthanized, buried and never mentioned again.

 

[alan]

I could be entirely wrong in/with regard to the following however respecting this USSC ruling, it strikes me that Mr., Mrs., Ms. law abiding citizen will come out of this with the short straw.

One can put any amount of lipstick on this pig, however I believe that nothing will change the above conclusion, barring The Court reversing itself, which I submit is unlikely given the court, as it stands now, and it could get worse.

I do not have any answers to the obvious question of what's next or what to do.

 

[publius]

If the evidence is not suppressed, what will motivate police to follow the proper procedure?

I believe that has already been answered: no donut.

Jeff White asked a question which may not have been answered, namely, what has changed.

Well, back in 2003, the SCOTUS unanimously ruled that police must wait 15 to 20 seconds after announcing their presence before smashing a door. Now, they must wait 3.

Seems to me that the allegedly difficult-to-get no-knock type of warrants are obsolete. What's the difference between zero seconds and three, especially when the court might once again cut that 3 seconds by another 80% in a few more years, bringing the wait time down to 6/10 of a second.

 

[Kentak]

It used to be that "conservative" meant limiting the power of government to infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens. I guess it now means expanding police powers.

Just a thought.

K

 

[Fleetwing1627]

I'm not sure I understand.

At my house, the front door is always locked with a deadbolt. We rarely ever use it, instead using the back door and garage door. If cops came to the house to serve a warrant, and weren't required to knock, then what does it matter? I assume cops normally use the front door, and it would be locked. They'd have to knock to be let in, unless they wanted to carry a shotgun with them every time they served a warrant. Most people I know rarely use their front doors and keep them locked.

 

[Michael Courtney]

We don't advocate breaking the law on this forum.

I was clearly not advocating breaking the law or resisting law enforcement.

I was pointing out (as the ruling itself also pointed out) that when a law enforcement agent breaks the law, a reasonable man is more likely (especially when only given an instant to consider the situation) to conclude that he is dealing with a criminal rather than a genuine law enforcement officer.

The new SCOTUS ruling only changes the remedy, not the basic illegality of the act in question. So when a reaonable man sees armed men breaking into his house, and the actions of the armed men both appear to be illegal, and are, in fact, illegal, why is it not reasonable to conclude that the armed men breaking into his home illegally are criminals?

I've never been a big fan of the exclusionary rule, but it was a significant negative consequence of illegal searches. Without sufficient negative consequences, there is the risk of proliferation of illegal searches. With the proliferation of illegal searches, there is increased risk of law enforcement agents being reasonably identified as criminals.

Personally, I've always believed that once they are acting outside the legal scope of their duties, government agents should be treated as ordinary citizens when they commit an act which is a crime for an ordinary citizen. This is an available remedy that would protect the interests of all concerned without freeing the guilty as the exclusionary rule.

Michael Courtney

 

[Biker]

If a squad of cops ever 'no-knocked' my house, it would be hilarious. I never lock my door and you have to go down a flight of stairs to get into my house.
Lead guy hits it with a ram and flies down my stairs with the rest of the guys landing on top of him.
After I stopped laughing, I guess I'd just offer 'em a brew.

Biker

 

[TallPine]

Seems to me that the allegedly difficult-to-get no-knock type of warrants are obsolete. What's the difference between zero seconds and three, especially when the court might once again cut that 3 seconds by another 80% in a few more years, bringing the wait time down to 6/10 of a second.

I think that about sums it up ...


The whole thing kinda reminds me of that scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where one of the thugs in the gang challenges Butch's (Paul Newman) leadership, and they decide to fight it out "on the count of three." Sundance Kid then says "123" just as fast as possible and the little Butch knocks out the big thug before he can react.

 

[Biker]

Actually, I think that it was the initial boot to the twins that took care o' bidness for Butch.

Biker

 

[kludge]

I think the biggest concern with the ruling has to do with the "security" and "sanctity" of the home. This has "misuse" written all over it.

I was under the (mis?)conception that when LEO's issued a warrant, I would be allowed to answer the door, the warrant would be presented, I would be able to see what they wanted to seach, why, and what they were looking for. I had no idea that a "knock", and/or an "announcement" and a wait of 3-5 seconds before breaking down the door could be construed as constitutional.

Who, may I ask, unless they are within arms reach of the door could ever answer it in the time allotted.

 

[publius]

I've never been a big fan of the exclusionary rule, but it was a significant negative consequence of illegal searches.

Corrected version:

I've never been a big fan of the exclusionary rule, but it is the significant negative consequence of illegal searches.

The judicial branch has exactly one arrow in their quiver on this one, and it's the exclusionary rule. Any other answer is just another version of "Bad cop! No donut!" I'm a big fan of the exclusionary rule for that reason. Without it, we have no balance of powers. "Behave yourselves, or else" works a heck of a lot better than "behave yourselves, please."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ATF - Waco

There was no need for a "no-knock" warrant service in Waco, Texas. The ATF wanted to put on a show for the media, which is the only reason it was handled the way it was handled. Of course, the "show" did not quite turn out like planned.

It was well known that Vernon Howell (psuedonym David Koresh) had previously been arrested by the local Sheriff for a violent crime charge. How did the local Sheriff go about serving the warrant?

(a) Call in the National Guard?

(b) Send out a SWAT team?

(c) Lie in wait to surprise him with an assault team during a trip to town?

(d) None of the above.


If you selected (d), then you are correct. The Sheriff simply picked up the phone and called him to tell him he had a warrant for his arrest and he would like him to turn himself in. Guess what? He did.

I don't guess the ATF likes to send out a couple of guys in coats and ties to knock on the door and politely request to search the place.


I have personally served "no knock" warrants. No fun. It was always amazing to me that nobody inside opened fire (middle of night, door crashing in, flashlights blinding, people screaming -oh, yeah, that's called "identifying yourselves as police", naked women running into the closet with front sights tracking them and waiting to see what will emerge from the closet).

It made me begin to wonder if there was not a better way to do it.
I used to think, what if this was my home? What would I do?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

It begins.........

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/COLUMNISTS17/606190353

Raid on home turns up no meth lab but leaves two injured

Durr-Pojar said she did run for her bathroom and closed her door. "I thought they were going to kill me. All this fire seemed to come through the windows. ... I didn't know if they were gun shots or what, and I thought Curtis had been shot or that the propane tank had blown up. I ran to the bathroom when I saw Curtis' head go down when the officers knocked him down. I closed the door, and they knocked it in and hit me in the head with it, then knocked me to the floor," said Durr-Pojar, who is on disability but works part-time making phone calls for a Springfield business.

 

[NineseveN]

Raid on home turns up no meth lab but leaves two injured

Patricia Durr-Pojar has a gash beneath her right eye, with stitches and a bandage over it.
Her son, Curtis Pojar, has bruises on his back and a contusion under his left eye. Durr-Pojar spent Thursday and Friday nights in a local emergency room — first, to have the cut under her eye treated, for a CT scan of her head and X-rays on her knees. The next night she went back to get a knee splint and crutches.

"I've had lots of knee surgery, and they slammed me down so hard on my knees," she said.

"They" are members of COMET — the Combined Ozark Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement Team — who broke into her home Thursday night to execute a search warrant for a reported meth lab.



They found none after breaking windows, doors and screens and knocking Durr-Pojar and Pojar to the floor and handcuffing both of them.

The warrant signed by Greene County Circuit Judge Mark Powell specified officers were to search for "controlled substances, in particular, methamphetamine, methamphetamine paraphernalia and other related items used in the manufacture and/or the distributing of controlled substances, in particular, methamphetamine."

Durr-Pojar said she believes the SWAT team arrived around 10 p.m., but said she isn't sure because of the time she was kept on her bathroom floor, not allowed to get up, "and I may have blacked out part of that time."

Despite officers breaking in and throwing items out of the second-story windows, the receipt of what officers took from the property listed nothing found in Durr-Pojar's home.

Found in Curtis Pojar's trailer — where he lives in front of his mother's house — and seized by officers were a .22 caliber pistol, "two bags of marijuana, marijuana pipe and roach clip, bag and bottle of marijuana seeds and bottle of marijuana."

Pojar was charged with possession of the items. He also was convicted in 1997 of possession of drug paraphernalia and received a suspended sentence and probation.

Durr-Pojar said she could not get any of the officers who broke into her house to tell her why they were there, except to berate her for risking her neighbor's safety by running a meth lab in her home.

Durr-Pojar said she saw at least one Missouri Highway Patrol vehicle and one from the Willard Fire Protection District among those gathered,

but a dispatcher with the patrol said Sunday that any information released would have to come from the agency the patrol was assisting at such an event.

Gary Wirth, Willard Fire Chief, said his agency only responded to the scene for a medical call.

Springfield Police could provide no information on the raid Sunday, but Greene County Sheriff Jack Merritt was able to find out information about the raid and said COMET officers did acknowledge injuring Durr-Pojar.

He said officers had information leading them to think there may have been a meth lab at the home.

The resident said she and her son had just returned home when black-garbed officers with black masks started setting off explosives outside the house.

"A flash grenade went off," Pojar said. "We didn't know what it was, but they threw it at the back window. It sounded like a stick of dynamite went off."

Durr-Pojar said neither she nor her son heard any of the officers identify themselves before or as they were breaking in.

Pojar, who has no kitchen in his travel trailer, was in the kitchen of his mom's home when they came in. He ran toward her room, while she was headed to the bathroom.

"She was screaming and I didn't know what was going on," he said. "That's when they knocked her to the floor."

Durr-Pojar said she did run for her bathroom and closed her door. "I thought they were going to kill me. All this fire seemed to come through the windows. ... I didn't know if they were gun shots or what, and I thought Curtis had been shot or that the propane tank had blown up. I ran to the bathroom when I saw Curtis' head go down when the officers knocked him down. I closed the door, and they knocked it in and hit me in the head with it, then knocked me to the floor," said Durr-Pojar, who is on disability but works part-time making phone calls for a Springfield business.

Merritt said COMET officers "said they thought she was running from them, even though they were yelling at her to stop."

Durr-Pojar said her head wound came from her face hitting the ceramic tile of her bathroom floor. "They hit in here with such violence, it was in a militant, terrorist style." Mother and son both said an officer repeatedly jumped up and down on Pojar's back with his knee, despite their both calling out that Pojar had had back fusion surgery in March from a construction injury.

On Sunday morning, broken glass from the front storm door lay on the house's front porch, yard and in Durr-Pojar's bathroom, and broken screens and storm windows were strewn over the yard. A plastic bag full of latex gloves and black items lay on the yard, Durr-Pojar said, left by the officers. "I was afraid to touch it — I don't know what's in it."

She said she is afraid to clean the glass from her tub so she can take a bath, or clean up other glass and a dark brown puddle on her tile which she believes is her blood, because friends and family members encouraged her to see a lawyer and she wasn't able to contact one on the weekend.

Flies, other insects — and perhaps other critters — come and go into the house, while Durr-Pojar and her son wonder how they will secure it. "I don't have no way to fix it," she said. "OACAC (the Ozarks Area Community Action Corporation) helped me winterize it and re-wire the electricity. But how do you think I'm going to replace my house?"

Indeed.

No law-abiding citizen can condone the thought of a meth lab. Its manufacture and sale brings danger to innocent people from users and their meth-madness, including the hazards of it blowing everyone near it to Kingdom Come.

But the brutality of this raid is terrifying. Durr-Pojar and her son said they did not hear officers warn them before breaking in.

And run from them? I've watched enough cop shows to know that in drug raids, people show up in black. But if they broke into my house unexpectedly among blazes and booms, would my first instinct be to run? You bet — run, jump, try to fly or drop and roll. I would probably think I was going to be killed, too.

And yes, the officers had to look at the items in a home where they suspected a meth lab.

But to throw things out a window, breaking them out and leaving them on the ground of a woman who obviously doesn't have money to replace them, wrestling her to the ground and holding her down so hard she needed stitches in her face?

What did that benefit their search?

I'd love to hear their answer.

Does anyone think this was handled properly? Personally, I don't know if there's enough info to go on here, I'd like to see the warrant and what exactly led them to believe that there was a meth lab where there really wasn't one? I don't like the way this turned out, but is this a case that is affected by thee SCOTUS decision? No evidence was found, so that's the test case we're kinda looking for here, now can they afford to sue and who's going to pay the damages?

 

[Biker]

Scary stuff. "Comet", huh?

Biker

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This coulda been a no-knock warrant but if it was it was an abuse.

You can't flush a meth lab down the toilet and neither of the suspects had a history of violent behaviour.

What other criterium would get a no-knock?

Leos?

 

[NineseveN]

neither of the suspects had a history of violent behaviour

Do we know this for sure?

 

[K-Romulus]

re: COMET raid

I don't get the flashbang thing.

Aren't methlabs supposed to be volatile?

My bud's little brother blew up his stepdad's house trying the WECSOMM* way of setting up and running a meth lab. That stunt cost him three years in state jail, plus PO'ing the last family member who would still talk to him.

Would any sane person throw an exposive device at a place filled with combustible chemical vapor?

*WECSOMM - Wyle E. Coyote School of Meth Making

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Although the article did not say, it did say that the guy got a probation for possession of paraphenalia.

They took his piece but did not say they were charging him with "felon in possession". That would be the usual piling on that they do when they catch a bg with a piece.

If they coulda they woulda.

I am only surmizing.

Otherwise the guy seeking the warrant could have gotten it out of the penumbra.

 

[NineseveN]

Good points, both of you.