WSJ on "no-knocks"

Status
Not open for further replies.

carebear

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
4,373
Location
Anchorage, AK
Looks like New Haven, San Jose and Denver are heading back toward sensibility at least.

I love NY's response, reforms that aren't binding and a PR section to clean up after mistakes. :rolleyes:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115714994871552186-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA3MjEwNDI5Wj.html

RULE OF LAW

Wrong Door

By RADLEY BALKO and JOEL BERGER
September 2, 2006; Page A9

The Supreme Court ruled this June that evidence seized in an illegally performed "no-knock" police raid can still be used against a defendant. Though disturbing in its own right, Hudson v. Michigan touched on only a small part of a larger problem -- the trend toward paramilitary tactics in domestic policing.

Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that the number of SWAT team "call-outs" soared past 40,000 in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) from about 3,000 in 1981. The vast majority are employed for routine police work -- such as serving drug warrants -- not the types of situations for which SWAT teams were originally established. And because drug policing often involves tips from confidential informants -- many of whom are drug dealers themselves, or convicts looking for leniency -- it's rife with bad information. As a result, hundreds of innocent families and civilians have been wrongly subjected to violent, forced-entry raids.

Last year, for example, New York City police mistakenly handcuffed Mini Matos, a deaf, asthmatic Coney Island woman during a pre-dawn raid. While her young son and daughter burst into tears, Ms. Matos's plea to use her asthma pump was ignored until an officer realized they entered the wrong apartment.

Home invasions can also provoke deadly violence because forced-entry raids offer very little margin for error. Since SWAT teams began proliferating in the late 1980s, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in botched raids. There are dozens more cases where low-level, nonviolent offenders and police officers themselves have been killed.

Last summer a SWAT team in Sunrise, Fla., shot and killed 23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto -- a bartender and part-time student with no history of violence -- during an early-morning raid on his home. Police found all of an ounce of marijuana. This January a member of the Fairfax, Va. SWAT team accidentally shot and killed Salvatore Culosi, a local optometrist with no criminal record, no history of violence and no weapons in his home. Police were investigating Culosi for wagering on sporting events with friends.

Public officials are rarely held accountable when mistakes happen. The Culosi family has yet to be given access to documents related to the investigation of his death, including why a SWAT team was sent to apprehend him in the first place. More than a year after Diotaiuto's death, his family too has been denied access to any of the documents it needs to move forward with a lawsuit.

New York City provides perhaps the most egregious example of public officials' reluctance to rein in the excessive use of paramilitary tactics. Throughout the 1990s, the city's newspapers reported a troubling, continuing pattern of "wrong door" drug raids. In many cases, tactical teams raided homes based solely on uncorroborated tips from unproven informants.

Members of the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board cautioned that they were seeing increasing complaints of botched raids, but limited jurisdiction and bureaucratic turf wars prevented them from doing anything about it. The principal result of the CCRB's warnings was the creation of a special police unit for the sole purpose of fixing locks, doors and windows in cases where forced-entry searches were performed on the wrong premises. Civil rights attorneys warned that without more substantial changes, it was only a matter of time before an innocent person would be killed in a botched drug raid.

They were right. In 2003, acting on a bad tip from an informant, police mistakenly raided the Harlem home of Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old city worker. The violence of the incursion literally scared Spruill to death; she died of a heart attack at the scene. The raid spurred public outrage, calls for reform, and promises from the city to change its ways. The NYPD published new guidelines calling for more reliability when taking tips from informants. The city also promised greater vigilance in conducting surveillance and double-checking addresses before a SWAT team was sent in.

But later, during the course of a lawsuit stemming from another, mistaken raid -- in 1992, on corrections officer Edward Garrison, his elderly mother and two young daughters -- the city declared that all of the post-Spruill reforms it had promised were merely discretionary, not enforceable in court, and could be revoked at will by any future mayor or police commissioner.

In any case, botched raids have not stopped. In 2004, police arrested a Brooklyn father of two in a drug raid and held him for six months at Riker's Island. In March of this year they dropped all the charges, conceding that he had been wrongly targeted. The man's lawyer called it the worst case of malicious prosecution she'd ever seen. Also in 2004, police mistakenly raided the home of Martin and Leona Goldberg, a Brooklyn couple in their 80s, when an informant provided bad information. "It was the most frightening experience of my life," Mrs. Goldberg later said. "I thought it was a terrorist attack."

The NYPD goofed again in 2005, when a SWAT team raided the Brooklyn apartment of the Williams family, instead of the targeted apartment on the same floor. Police continued to search the apartment even after it was obvious they were in the wrong home. This year, according to the CCRB, there have already been at least 15 mistaken raids.

A few cities, such as New Haven, Conn., and San Jose, Calif., restrict the use of SWAT teams to cases where a suspect presents an immediate threat. Denver dramatically cut back the number of "no-knock" raids conducted after a SWAT team shot and killed an innocent man in a botched raid in 1999, and follow-up investigations revealed severe deficiencies in the how police had obtained "no-knock" warrants.

But these examples are few and far between. Most of the country is moving toward more militarization, more aggressive drug policing -- and less accountability when things go wrong.

Mr. Balko is the author of "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," published by the Cato Institute, where he is a policy analyst. Mr. Berger is an attorney representing the Williams and Garrison families and a former New York City Law Department executive.
 
My contention has been that city government is where the most violations of rights occur. You'll note how resistant LEO brass are to simple procedural litigation activities such as discovery, deposition, and/or FOIA. The ability to keep the person who would fund the investigation behind bars is a useful tool to hamper these investigations.

Also, their realization that bad warrants can still lead to good evidence would tend to make them want to continue ransacking a home in order to find something, anything to prosecute. Marijuana residue, or Tylenol 3 in another person's name, for example.

Rick
 
"No-nocks" are an incredibly bad idea. Most of the police who advocate them have only encountered people who can't fight back. Sooner or later they will go to the wrong residence (both literally and figuratively) and someone who is capable of defending themself will do so effectively and with good cause. And they'll probably go to jail for it, even though the error and wrong doing would be solely on the heads of the intruders.

Yet I doubt if they will "learn."

It's interesting to me that those who advocate such draconian violations of both civil rights and human decency won't 1) absolutely guarantee that it will happen at the correct residence, and 2) take responsibility for the inevitable mistakes. They want to be able to do what they want, but they refuse to accept responsibility for the errors and our legislators and judges allow them to do so.

I find all of it unacceptable.
 
I find it an extremely sad state of affairs that I must arm myself with equal or better weaponry and be absolutely prepared to use them against villian or LEO if such a botched raid should ever happen in my home.
 
...someone who is capable of defending themself will do so effectively and with good cause. And they'll probably go to jail for it...

Only if they are extremely lucky. In the two cases I'm aware of where the "subject" defended themselves, they ended up dead.

(No, I don't have cites--sorry. Y'all can Google as well as I can. One case in Tacoma, WA and another in Michigan, I believe.)
 
and

lets not forget that to some degree we are relying on the guys screwing up to tell us about it. self policing works poorly
 
Good, major news media are finally picking up on this. Lets hope this is the start of a trend.

Isnt the federal government supposed to be protecting our civil rights or something? How come they dont intervene in these obvious cases of wrongdoing? If the feds started locking cops and prosecutors in jail for such bad faith acts, wouldnt it have a chilling effect no such behavior in the future?
 
Radly Balko at The Agitator.

Balko is one of the few folks keeping up with this sort of thin in an organized way. I've got www.theagitator.com bookmarked and check it often.

This won't end. It's getting worse. IMPO a major way to restrict it would be open the officers and supervisors who participate to direct civil and criminal prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Isnt the federal government supposed to be protecting our civil rights or something? How come they dont intervene in these obvious cases of wrongdoing? If the feds started locking cops and prosecutors in jail for such bad faith acts, wouldnt it have a chilling effect no such behavior in the future?
The problem is, they don't consider it "bad faith," they consider it "good faith." The error can be as simple as a typographical slip on the part of whoever types up either the request for the warrant, or the warrant itself, or it can be that in the excitement the team leader doesn't read the address correctly and the team goes to the wrong street number, or to the right number on a similar-sounding street.

Even I, who am no supporter of no-knock (or even "knock and wait 15 seconds") raids am willing to concede that the errors usually aren't errors of bad faith ... which, after all, would suppose that the cops intentionally raided an address for which they knew they didn't have a warrant. No, I think the errors are nothing more than errors.

But, considering that such errors result in innocent people and police officers being killed, I do not think they can be justified. Not until "the system" can guarantee with 100% certainty that there will never be a dynamic entry at an incorrect address. And I do not believe there is any way they can ever offer a 100% guarantee of reliability.
 
I agree that stuff is bad too, but what about:
-when they realize they have the wrong address but keep searching anyway, in hopes they can find something arrestable
-when they realize they have the wrong address and arrest the homeowner anyway in hopes that a few months in jail will soften up his resolve to sue them
-when they stonewall requests for information when people do sue
 
Also, their realization that bad warrants can still lead to good evidence would tend to make them want to continue ransacking a home in order to find something, anything to prosecute.
If the warrant isn't for my home, would anything seized from my home be able to be used as evidence?
 
No, I think if you dont have a warrant for those particular premises, the evidence gets tossed out. I dunno, maybe they were hoping for something to hold over their heads so they could negotiate lower damages. Most people dont have ready access to lawyers, especially people living in NYC housing projects.

From what I understand, warrants are rarely issued for the things the police ultimately charge someone with. Usually the cops will get a warrant for something like weed and end up finding weapons or meth or stolen vcrs. It's up to the defendant to show that the affidavit is BS and they were really just going on a fishing expidition.

The ATF is currently in this situation thanks to KT Ordinance not actually having broken any laws. It's gonna suck for them when that "secret affidavit" finally gets unsealed.
 
beerslurpy said:
I agree that stuff is bad too, but what about:
-when they realize they have the wrong address but keep searching anyway, in hopes they can find something arrestable
-when they realize they have the wrong address and arrest the homeowner anyway in hopes that a few months in jail will soften up his resolve to sue them
-when they stonewall requests for information when people do sue
Ah, yes ... you aren't referring to the initial error but to the post error CYA activity, the "closing of the ranks." Yes, I agree completely that those are acts of bad faith.

beerslurpy said:
The ATF is currently in this situation thanks to KT Ordinance not actually having broken any laws. It's gonna suck for them when that "secret affidavit" finally gets unsealed.
We hope! Got any updates on that story? I haven't seen anything for awhile.
 
They are trying to forfeit his stuff and he has to put down a 10 percent bond to begin trying to recover it. Of course, they havent bothered to charge him with anything, they are just claiming that as a civil matter, he used the material to violate their regulations. It's only like 1100 bucks, so I think he should be able to come up with the money. He'll get it back once he prevails, which should be pretty easy in my estimation. That not breaking the law stuff is a pretty sturdy defense. Until then, I think his business is shut down.

And the ATF has absolutely nothing on him because a) they would have charged him by now b) he has gone to great pains to not break the law in the slightest measure- until the raid, he had a fairly cordial professional relationship with the ATF tech branch. Supposedly theyre just going after him because he is a) an 80% guy b) a supporter of the JFPO. But really it could be any reason. Maybe someone local doesnt like him and has a cousin at the ATF who he got a favor from. With agency behavior as irrational as this, who can say what their reason was?
 
-when they realize they have the wrong address and arrest the homeowner anyway in hopes that a few months in jail will soften up his resolve to sue them

That probably is the government logic. Twisted and screwed up. Imagine them pulling that stunt on some of the people on this board. I know I would personally see red every day while in jail wrongfully. Maybe some of the NYCites think differently.
 
Shouldn't there be some way to distinguish between criminals and law enforcement?

There could be laws requiring criminals to wear uniform that identify them as such, to apply for and receive Home Invasion Warrants from a judge, and to drive vehicles plainly and prominently marked "New York City Criminal" (with the location changed as appropriate, of course). Then law abiding citizens would know that other people who break into their homes are law enforcement officers just doing their jobs.

Give my suggestion some thought. It might work and might be worth promoting in your local news media.
 
There could be laws requiring criminals to wear uniform that identify them as such, to apply for and receive Home Invasion Warrants from a judge, and to drive vehicles plainly and prominently marked "New York City Criminal" (with the location changed as appropriate, of course). Then law abiding citizens would know that other people who break into their homes are law enforcement officers just doing their jobs.

Robert,

That's crazy talk! Don't you see that such requirements would cause a hardship on the criminal's ability to effectively do their jobs of committing crime against us?

They need the ability to not wear bright easily identifyable uniforms to either "blend in" more effectively with honest folk to gather intelligence or to wear imposing outfits to more readily establish situational dominance during the invasion. Without these advantages the honest homeowner might mount a successful resistance.

Getting a H.I. warrant would add time to the process and perhaps allow we homeowners to hide or remove the loot.

Driving up in such marked criminal vehicles would have the same problem, we might see them coming and barricade our doors, wait in ambush, send for help and/or hide/destroy the loot.

No, I think we're better off with the system as is. After all, who cares about the homeowner? It is far more important that criminals can get the job done effectively and go home to their families every night. :rolleyes:
 
Sigh. You might be right. Okay, I guess maybe we're stuck with the present situation until someone comes up with a better idea. This one is really hard to figure out.
 
Quote:
...someone who is capable of defending themself will do so effectively and with good cause. And they'll probably go to jail for it...


Only if they are extremely lucky. In the two cases I'm aware of where the "subject" defended themselves, they ended up dead.

Wasn't there a story a while back about a guy who shot a cop during a no knock raid where the officers had the wrong address? I know I read it somewhere, but it must have been bogus for it not to be cited by Balko.
 
The problem is, they don't consider it "bad faith," they consider it "good faith." The error can be as simple as a typographical slip on the part of whoever types up either the request for the warrant, or the warrant itself, or it can be that in the excitement the team leader doesn't read the address correctly and the team goes to the wrong street number, or to the right number on a similar-sounding street.

Even I, who am no supporter of no-knock (or even "knock and wait 15 seconds") raids am willing to concede that the errors usually aren't errors of bad faith ... which, after all, would suppose that the cops intentionally raided an address for which they knew they didn't have a warrant. No, I think the errors are nothing more than errors.

But, considering that such errors result in innocent people and police officers being killed, I do not think they can be justified. Not until "the system" can guarantee with 100% certainty that there will never be a dynamic entry at an incorrect address. And I do not believe there is any way they can ever offer a 100% guarantee of reliability.

I agree with this assessment as well. The "good faith" "bad faith" hair-spliting is just an excuse.

The SCOTUS should be focused on individual liberty and Rights rather than the Improvable intent of Govt stormtroopers. The Bill of Rights does not come with a clause that reads : If the intent of the Govt is indeed in good faith, then these Rights can be removed.

I think rulings like this are what we get when we ask a branch of Govt to define our "Rights" and protections FROM Govt. SCOTUS is completly is dropping the ball here. I cant believe they cant see where this is going.

The risk of fatal error and the serious unliklihood of redress of grievance by Govt alone should shut this down.

"no knocks" make no sense to me if we are a free country. How can a law-abidding citizen tell, within seconds....at night....awoken from sleep.....disorintated with the sudden noise and blinding lights, if this a bad guy or just your friendly neighborhood LEO? (because this is NOT behavoir of respectful community policing)


Sorry LEO's yes the job is tough but find another way.
 
Acting in good faith is an important component of guilt or innocence in common law. You also have to recognize that we are the idiots that have collectively decided that stamping out the use of marijuana is so important. Most police are only trying to do their jobs and enforce the crappy laws we have given to them.

I think that we have enough examples of bad-faith on the part of LE agencies that there is no need to complicate things by mixing in political issues. Stamping out the war of drugs without safeguarding against the tyrannies it has encouraged will only allow them to return when the next stupid idea hits our legislatures.

We need to crack down on the following LE activities:
-civil forfeiture without first convincting someone of a crime.
Civil forfeiture needs to be part of a sentence for a conviction, with all the due process and 8th amendment concerns that are due. No more of this "give us a 10% bond for the right to sue us for your property back."
-accusing property of crimes as a civil matter. This is a major nexus of evil in our criminal justice system and I mention it twice to be sure no one misses the point. The proper conduit for taking property when a crime has been committed is: to accuse the transgressor and take property as a punishment.
-using SWAT teams for anything less than barricade or hostage situations. They should only be used in situations presenting clear and immediate danger, such that officers on the scene cannot address the situation. We need to massively curtail the funding and use of SWAT nationwide in this country. Search warrants and non-violent arrest warrants are way out of bounds.
-covering each others asses when they make mistakes, either by lying or by silencing the wronged party. This is a really difficult one since the feds, state and local police all seem to tacitly agree that holding LE agencies responsible for their transgressions would create an ugly precedent. I am not sure how to solve this problem without creating major disruptions.
-prosecutors arranging for slaps on the wrist to police officers that actually get caught and cant lie their way out of it. I feel that the adversarial system breaks down when prosecutors and police go up against one another. We all know that they handle them with kid gloves and the judges quietly go along. We need to reintroduce genuine adversity back into the system of trying police for crimes. Either allow civilian lawyers to sue government officials for crimes or create some special branch of prosecution that only goes after crooked cops and government officials.

By the way, the last two are bad things that I'm not sure can be fixed, at least not in any obvious way. And fixing the forfeiture and SWAT problems would pretty much resolve them anyway. I feel that almost all of the ass-covering these days seems to arise from police taking stuff they shouldnt under the civil forfeiture laws or harming people they shouldnt with SWAT.
 
Cato Institute (and author Radley Balko) have produced a searchable map of botched raids here: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Agree with the article, that the example set by New Haven, San Jose, and Denver, being more selective in use of SWAT and no-knocks is unlikely to catch on. "Follow the money". Right now, a good chunk of funding by way of federal grant money, donated equipment, etc., dictates that paramilitary policing is likely to grow. Its being encouraged, really. Anyone within the system that attempts to curtail, will be accused of shutting off mothers milk, as it were. A non-starter.

What is a person to make of this LE response, after a botched raid is executed? Some may remember the Culosi case in VA:

Link: http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=69787&paper=61&cat=109
Victim's Family Denounces Police Investigation

Six months after a Fairfax County SWAT team officer shot and killed an unarmed man outside his town house in Fair Oaks, an internal police department investigation is still ongoing.
Salvatore Culosi, a 37-year-old optometrist, had been under investigation for illegal sports gambling. As police officers moved in to arrest him on the evening of Jan. 24, an officer's .45-caliber handgun went off and killed Culosi.
In a new statement Sunday, the victim's parents, Sal and Anita Culosi, criticized the Fairfax County Police Department for not releasing the results of an internal affairs investigation into the incident.
"We were hopeful that sheer decency would mandate that Chief [David] Rohrer honor Supervisor [Gerry] Connolly's request to respond to us 'with an estimation of the time for the release of a report on the death of our son.'" To date, Chief Rohrer has failed to comply with this request," the parents said.
Fairfax County Police spokesman Rich Perez said the internal investigation into the shooting is ongoing. "It's a very lengthy process," he said.
In May, Fairfax County prosecutor Robert Horan announced that he would not press charges against the officer, Deval Bullock, a 17-year veteran of the county's police force. Bullock remains on administrative duty while the internal investigation proceeds.

In other words: footdrag, and circle the wagons. We see it often on this forum. Sides are becoming balkanized, I'm afraid.
 
I'm worried about when bad guys start using "police tactics" for home invasions on a larger scale. If some bad guy wants to steal, hurt, etc he and his buddies can buy a windbreaker that says police easily and bust down people's doors yelling "Police Search Warrant!" How many people are going to shhot at them, or offer up a gun fight? I know I for one have wondered what I would do. This happened in Houston and it lead to the death of one sheriff's deputy and I beleive a couple of the bad guys. One of the girls in the house hid in a closet and called the police when she thought the whole thing was bogus. Turned out the bad guys were actually also at the wrong house... They wanted the crack dealer next door with the intention of taking his drugs and money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top