No Knock Warrants

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff White said:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
: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.
 
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.
 
Identity theft is legal for Ohio law enforcement

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:


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."
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
No-Knock Warrants: Symptoms and Diseases

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...
 
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.


michelle_szuhay.jpg



Our tax dollars well spent.... :scrutiny:
 
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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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:
 
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
 
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,
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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top