4th Circuit: Concealed carry permit not justification for no-knock raid

[hirundo82]

Decision here.

Short version:

Walmart clerk sees picture that he thinks is kiddy porn (turns out the woman in the picture is 35 years old). Calls police.

Police (Jefferson Co. WV Sheriff's Dept.) get a warrant, decide that since the homeowners both have West Virginia CCW permits that constitutes exigent circumstances to conduct a no-knock raid since the accused may get violent (didn't ask for no-knock warrant from magistrate).

Tactical team had recently been trained in "dynamic entry." Burst into the home at 10:15pm without announcing themselves, hold kids at gunpoint, stop mother as she's going for a gun in the closet (I'm surprised she wasn't shot). It turns out the father wasn't even home; he goes to the sheriff's office the next day (so much for being a desperate criminal).

The family unsurprisingly sues the officers involved. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals says that having a concealed carry permit definitely does not justify a no-knock raid.

 

[Cougfan2]

Some heads need to roll on this one.

 

[Cosmoline]

This is more than simply a search being tossed. They removed qualified immunity. Good opinion.

 

[hirundo82]

This is more than simply a search being tossed. They removed qualified immunity.

Yeah, I should have specified that in the OP. There was no search to be tossed because there was no crime committed, and thus no prosecution (or even charges filed).

 

[Remo223]

So the officers are royally...up a creek...in deep doodoo?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Some heads need to roll on this one.

Figuratively speaking, at least.

The only way government ever seems to learn the obvious lessons when it comes to our rights is to be sued for lots of money. Government all to frequently understand little or nothing about rights; it does, however, generally understand money.

 

[Kingcreek]

but, but its OUR MONEY, not the gubmint's!

 

[hermannr]

Interesting case. Too many LEO's watching too much late night TV.

I have another point though. This whole insidence could have been prevented at Wal-mart. I print the photos, the clerk has no business seeing whta I printed. That is an invasion of privacy.

I think they should have their lawyer take that up with Wal-mart. That should be worth the cost of the lawyer in defending themselves if nothing else.

 

[Manco]

Tactical team had recently been trained in "dynamic entry."

In a bit of a hurry to test their newly acquired skillz, eh?

 

[zxcvbob]

They removed qualified immunity. Good opinion.

So the officers are being prosecuted for home invasion and kidnapping? (extra points if they pile-on weapons charges)

It'll never happen. In fact I predict no criminal charges at all, not even a misdemeanor.

 

[mustang_steve]

Let me get this right, the police commiteed an armed home invasion, reckless endangerment of children, and on top of it violated the civil rights of all parties involved?

There's many officers that need to be formally charged here.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Let me get this right, the police commiteed an armed home invasion, reckless endangerment of children, and on top of it violated the civil rights of all parties involved?

There's many officers that need to be formally charged here.

Amen.

Am I the only one who gets fuming mad when they consider someone with a concealed/carry permit "a risk"?

Meanwhile...in other news a 2 time convicted felon shoots a man and his daughter right up the street from where I work. Law abiding citizen (I mean really, who hasn't taken nude pictures of their wives/girlfriends?) gets a no-knock warrant and endangered by local leo's that make a [strike]bad[/strike] horrible decision based on nothing...meanwhile a 2 time convicted felon is somehow out on the streets at 21 and shooting fathers and daughters. Man our system needs help. :banghead: Granted....if the leo's suspect child pornography is going on, they should investigate...but that isn't the path they chose.

I'm normally against lawsuits since taxpayers foot the bill...but those officers involved in the decision to go no knock should be punished (not a verbal reprimand...I mean losing stripes and pay) and they should sue the pants off of the department.

What if someone had been carrying? If someone kicks in my door tonight and runs in with an mp5, I can almost guarantee you that I'll shoot. If you ask me, the commanding officer endangered his men needlessly.

 

[hirundo82]

I think they should have their lawyer take that up with Wal-mart.

WalMart is named as a defendant too.

In a bit of a hurry to test their newly acquired skillz, eh?

This seems to be happening way too often with the proliferation of SWAT teams. There's no way every single county needs a team, but if they have them they want to use them. Some agencies now use them for every single drug warrant--get observed buying an ounce of pot? SWAT team at your door.

Hopefully the officers are found individually liable instead of the taxpayers footing the bill.

 

[blackspyder]

Well if they win the lawsuit they can afford to get a digital photo printer for their home, one would have saved them from this encounter.

The individual officers will get off scott free, only the one who made the call that a CCW constitutes a No-Knock Warrent will be charged.

 

[ForumSurfer]

The individual officers will get off scott free, only the one who made the call that a CCW constitutes a No-Knock Warrent will be charged.

I can almost be ok with that. The officers were following orders and likely only knew they were raiding a suspected child pornographer. The detective who requested a no-knock with a tactical team and the officer who granted it are to blame IMO. They are the key players that determined a citizen exercising his/her 2a rights deemed them "dangerous."

 

[Cosmoline]

So the officers are being prosecuted for home invasion and kidnapping?

No, this is all civil. A 1983 action against the officers directly as well as the department. That's a federal claim for violation of civil rights, not a criminal prosecution. Qualified immunity is a doctrine designed to protect LEO's from suits based on judicial second-guessing over gray areas of the law. That defense was rejected.

 

[kludge]

but, but its OUR MONEY, not the gubmint's!

I say we go after their pensions then.

That way we get our money back.

 

[ghostwriter]

So... just to throw more gas on the fire... what if:

They had busted into MY house and I (being fully armed with my 45 XD) made 3 or 4 clean head shots before realizing the perps were in fact REAL cops and not just dressed up home invasion robbers.... wonder what the outcome would've been then?

 

[zxcvbob]

If you're black, you would end up like Cory Maye. That is, if you survive the encounter (black or not.)

 

[winchester1886]

Search Warrant

After almost 20 years in Law Enforcement I still can't believe how stupid some LEO are. I don't know about other states but I'm sure we all fall under the 4th amendment.To get a door knocking warrant which means kick the door down if you have to,you had to fill out a search warrant affidavit with things like probable cause address and ect.You then had to get a District Judge to read the Affidavit and if he felt there was good probable cause might issue the Search Warrant. If you didn't dot every eye or cross every t you were out of luck. Another thing if you were an LEO that didn't have your info like you said it was then good luck with that judge again.

 

[Ron James]

Not to get too far off the subject, I remember there were certain judges that you could get to sign off on any search warrant with just a little evidence. We used to love those guys. People, it's hard out there, but that is still no reason for stupidity, and every department had it's share,. What is really bad is when the head of the department is stupid, that's why my police career was only two years.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I agree that this was clearly a miscarriage of justice and ridiculous to do a raid on a house for a Wal Mart clerk "thinking" he saw some child porn. However, a lot of you need to come to the sad realization that not everyone who has a CCW is a good guy. I've come across and arrested numerous drug dealers and other criminals who had their CCW in their pocket because they had yet to be convicted of a crime. Having a CCW is not a blanket reason to do a no-knock entry but neither is it the automatic good guy card that most people on here think. Sorry to break it to you.

 

[Leanwolf]

"WalMart is named as a defendant too."

As well they should be!!

L.W.

 

[jbrown50]

However, a lot of you need to come to the sad realization that not everyone who has a CCW is a good guy. I've come across and arrested numerous drug dealers and other criminals who had their CCW in their pocket because they had yet to be convicted of a crime. Having a CCW is not a blanket reason to do a no-knock entry but neither is it the automatic good guy card that most people on here think. Sorry to break it to you.

It doesn't matter whether a person has a CCW or not, it's still against the law to carry or use a firearm during the commission of a crime. Sometimes that includes cops too....right?

Sorry to break it to you but not all cops are good guys either.

 

[peavybob]

I'm not 100% positive on this but I'm pretty sure that is against store policy if not against the law for stores to print pictures that are pornographic in nature. If it actually looked like it was a child in the picture then the clerk should have reported it.

Even the no-knock entry can sort of be justified (I'm not condoning it). The biggest fault in this case is that the police didn't bother to identify the person in the photo before raiding.