Even in Israel raids against terrorist if certain conditions are met which for obvious reasons I will not detail here. We surround the house and knock on the door, telling them we are the police or IDF depending on who is doing the raid.
Back to the original question: Murder or Self-Defense if Officer Is Killed in Raid?
Answers are fairly easy on the extreme boundaries:
Invadee Shooter is felon illegally possessing firearm, existing warrants, was hiding from police, etc- Capital Murder and associated upcharges applies
Invadee Shooter is innocent homeowner who had no previous knowledge or expectations of an LEO home invasion. No clear indication (lights/sirens) that it was police- Self Defense / Castle Doctrine defense applies. Includes: Wrong house, etc
Invadee Shooter is guilty of charge that was not targeted by the Search Warrant who had no previous knowledge or expectations of an LEO home invasion. No clear indication (lights/sirens) that it was police- Self Defense / Castle Doctrine defense applies. Remember, the warrant has to be specific. If evidence of other criminal activity found that was not specified it's typically excluded. An example would be a raid targeted (incorrectly) to catch a drug dealer, which the invadee shooter was not guilty of. But find the homeowner had a state banned std-cap magazine in their possession.
Grey Areas:
Invadee Shooter not felon, thought they were performing self defense, but was in fact guilty of the drug infraction (something more than a crack pipe with residue, or under 1 gram residue of illegal substance, etc) or other offense that the warrant was issued for
Invadee Shooter not committing crime, but had knowledge or forewarning (Flashing lights, announcements, etc) that it was a police raid. Actually, this is not very gray, as they have to comply.
Other Grey area/Problem sources:
- No lights or sirens once the raid starts
- Black/navy windbreakers only marked on the back. Looks very much like a hoodie in the middle of the night with bleary eyes.
- Announce-enter warrants that turn into No-Knock somehow. Happens enough that it's an issue. And usually the only witnesses are other officers due to the nature of early AM raids. One of the big GA cases about half the officers indicated announcement was given, others indicated it was not, or they did not hear it.
Thinking this through has made me wonder if I need to put up signs as I have folks living at home who are legally deaf without hearing aids. (And you don't sleep in hearing aids). "Armed Deaf People Inside- Knock Loudly and Ring Doorbell". Joking aside, we are at the point of having to consider Hearing Service dogs.
There should always be marked units and uniformed personnel at all warrant services.
It is not unheard of to have guys buy stuff online or at army surplus stores and have a friend with a black Yukon.
I know some people want to get their Vic Mackey Narco Ninja on but people barging in with guns screaming is people barging in with guns screaming.
This Shouldn't be a grey area, if the jury believes he thought he was acting in self defense. Although, I'm not sure a reasonable belief you are using self-defense would clear someone on the murder in commission of felony charge that the DA would try to push, question is were the actions taken in furtherance of the ongoing felony of possession or sales, whatever. See below:
I already posted this once:
In December 2013, Henry Magee shot and killed a police officer during a pre-dawn, no-knock drug raid on his home. He was initially charged with capital murder, but he argued that he shot the police officer, who he thought was an intruder, to protect his pregnant girlfriend. In February 2014, a grand jury declined to indict him, and charges were dropped.
In May, a Texas man named Marvin Guy also killed a police officer during a pre-dawn, no-knock raid on his home. Guy, too, was charged with capital murder. Unlike Magee's grand jury, a grand jury in September 2014 allowed the capital murder charge against Guy to stand. His trial is likely to happen in 2016.
Guy, who is black, now faces the death penalty. Magee is white.
Magee's case wasn't completely identical to Guy's — the latter (Guy) had done prison time on robbery and weapons charges, while Magee's previous arrests were for marijuana possession and DUI. But the circumstances of the raids, if anything, made Guy's reaction more justifiable. Police were trying to enter McGee's house through the door when he shot at them, while, in Guy's case, they were trying to climb in through the window. And during the raid on McGee's house, the cops did in fact find a few pounds of marijuana plants. In the raid on Guy's house, they found nothing.
This is the one I was thinking of - the story infers this is a case of racial bias, but I'm not sure. Left unsaid is how he was actually charged - if, as stated he had previously served PRISON as opposed to jail time on weapons charges he was a felon in possession of a firearm at the time he shot the officer - which would mean he killed the officer while in the commission of a felon. I suppose he could have had his rights restored, but I'd be willing to bet that is why the Grand Jury bound him over.
Throw in stun grenade to deafen, blind, and disorient people. That sounds like a recipe for a defense lawyer. My client was woken up suddenly, was terrified, couldn't hear any police warnings, his vision was blurred, and he was disoriented so he shot an intruder; who later turned out to be a police officer.
I don't really know, just am aware there is some important case law touching on this. Police chasing someone, entered an apartment they thought he had entered (claiming exigent circumstances), found a bunch of guys smoking dope, etc. Also on search warrants, particularly in the area of computer searches.
Several examples of illegal images found during a search for drug or murder info on a computer being disallowed as they were not specified in the warrant, there was no PC to expect it, nor was it really in the scope of the original warrant even though a search of the device was.
From one important ruling: "An affidavit and search warrant authorizing the seizure and search must describe with particularity the type of items to be sought, supported by probable cause to believe that those items will be found."
It does sound like from some of the rulings I've read that the "Scope" (physical area to be searched) and the physical size of the article they are searching for (Piano or NASCAR Engine vs drugs) factors in.
I'll leave the lawyers and LEO to debate this issue. :-)
Not to sidetrack but finding something not on the warrant SHOULD be thrown out, and I don't care what it is. The 4th Amendment mentions the word "particular" and that can be inferred as meaning specific. A warrant is not, and should not be, a fishing expedition. Yeah, I know what courts have upheld but it's bullshit. SCOTUS upheld slavery once.....did that make it right?
11C2P '83-'87
Airborne Infantry
F**k China!
That's what I was referring to with my last post.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Last edited by ABNAK; 03-20-17 at 17:43.
11C2P '83-'87
Airborne Infantry
F**k China!
Bookmarks