View Full Version : Murder or Self-Defense if Officer Is Killed in Raid? (No-Knock Raid Thread)
platoonDaddy
03-19-17, 10:24
Long read, but interesting on No Knock Warrants
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html?_r=0
SOMERVILLE, Tex. — Joshua Aaron Hall had been a resident of the Burleson County Jail for about a week when he requested a meeting with Gene Hermes, the sheriff’s investigator who had locked him up for violating probation. The stocky lawman arrived in the featureless interview room on the morning of Dec. 13, 2013, placed his soda cup on the table and apologized for not getting there sooner. He asked in his gravelly drawl if they would be talking about Mr. Hall’s own case.
“No,” said Mr. Hall, a methamphetamine user and petty criminal who was facing his most serious jail time. “I want to give you something else.”
Mr. Hall reminded the investigator that they had spoken previously about the narcotics trade in the vast flatlands of central Texas. “Gene, you said you wanted to eradicate the problem,” Mr. Hall said. “And I’ve been thinking for the past couple of days that, you know, maybe I’m put in this position to help you do this.”
“All right,” the investigator said.
I got some strong opinions about no knocks that I wont share beyond....
Unless someone is potentially going to die; they are not worth it. If they flush their dope; oh well. It's still gone.
A lot that can go wrong so it better be literally life or death.
Unless someone is potentially going to die; they are not worth it. If they flush their dope; oh well. It's still gone.
A lot that can go wrong so it better be literally life or death.
Exactly.
About 25 (?) years ago the Portland OR PD did a drug raid (I believe a no-knock) and a cop was shot and killed. The shooter was promptly sent to the pen for forever and a day. A few years later a local defense attorney started digging, and lo and behold established that the narcotics unit was fabricating their affidavits for search warrants. As I recall the verdict was reversed and the shooter walked free. Needless to say it left a very bad taste in a lot of mouths.
I occasionally got roped into helping on no-knocks, and personally I thought they were stupid as hell. Maybe if some psycho is holding a bunch of school kids hostage, okay. Otherwise, screw it.
I got to know that defense attorney. Came the day when it looked like my own agency was liable to hang my ass out to dry, I contacted him just in case. It never came to that, but if it did I wanted the biggest, baddest defense on the planet.
Going off the op, what if it's the wrong house? Does whoever is responsible for going through the wrong door get charged?
As said, short of life/death, it seems like a shit sandwich
As I've seen more and more cases of this over the years, I always question the tactic. As far back as David Koresh, I wondered why they didn't just pick him up when he was out on a run to the store.
This is America. If someone busts down a door in the middle of the night, I would expect some shooting to take place. This being the case, I think that at least the "no-knock" portion should be done away with. How does a person asleep in their home know who is smashing down their door. As long as people know the police are doing these no-knock raids, criminals can simply do the same thing and yell out "POLICE!", as they smash their way in.
I would rather see a few criminals flush their drugs and get away with it, than to risk police and innocent lives by continuing with this extremely dangerous policy. The vast majority of criminals are going to surrender peacefully when the cops knock on the door and there is a full SWAT team behind them. And if the risk is too great, keep the perp under surveillance and pick him up when he leaves the house. If he runs, send the dog(s). Ain't nobody going to outrun a malinois.
Going off the op, what if it's the wrong house? Does whoever is responsible for going through the wrong door get charged?
As said, short of life/death, it seems like a shit sandwich
Look up Cory Maye. He shot and killed a cop on a no-knock on the wrong side of a duplex. They "found" a gram of weed (even though they went in the wrong residence) so he was sentenced to death. Eventually, after 10 years in prison and two retrials he signed a plea of manslaughter and was released. And no, if the cop shot the wrong person during a no-knock they don't (as a rule) get charged. You? Yes. Them? No.
SomeOtherGuy
03-19-17, 13:59
I got some strong opinions about no knocks that I wont share beyond....
Unless someone is potentially going to die; they are not worth it. If they flush their dope; oh well. It's still gone.
A lot that can go wrong so it better be literally life or death.
I occasionally got roped into helping on no-knocks, and personally I thought they were stupid as hell. Maybe if some psycho is holding a bunch of school kids hostage, okay. Otherwise, screw it.
This, 100.000%. Of course the only reason these techniques were developed was for hostage rescue. Using them for basic warrant service is a perversion.
Oh yeah, the flushed drugs / destroyed evidence argument. It's bullshit. Almost any location has times when no one is at home. Stake it out and wait for it to be empty. If you can't do that, figure out how to catch the "flushed evidence." Hint: you can tap a sewer line from a house and collect the contents without endangering anyone's life. And a million times easier if it's a septic system (because the evidence is staying on-site).
Going off the op, what if it's the wrong house? Does whoever is responsible for going through the wrong door get charged?
They should, but I've never heard of one getting charged in those cases, even when innocent people died.
thebarracuda
03-19-17, 14:16
The risk of life destroying actions done to innocent people, or the officers, far outweigh the benefits in my mind.
Dist. Expert 26
03-19-17, 14:54
I did a speech on this a couple years ago for a communications class.
I can't remember specifics, but the number of no-knock raids for trivial BS has increased exponentially over the last decade. It's led to a lot of innocent people having their doors kicked in, some getting shot and even a toddler permanently disfigured by a flashbang grenade.
The conclusion I came to is that most of the time there's no legitimate reason for a SWAT raid other than guys wanting to play Delta operator for the day.
Sorry guys but... When you bust someone's door down in the middle of the night you should expect to be shot! No Knock warrants are bullshit.
I got some strong opinions about no knocks that I wont share beyond....
Unless someone is potentially going to die; they are not worth it. If they flush their dope; oh well. It's still gone.
A lot that can go wrong so it better be literally life or death.
Multiple notable cases in GA. (Flash-bang dropped in a baby's crib, bogus non-judicial warrants leading to midnite swat raids. And the red-dog old lady shooting)
Add in the "let's roll the bearcat sniper team" aspect like the kid in Cherokee county, and it's sobering
Causes more (fatal) problems than its worth.
Multiple notable cases in GA. (Flash-bang dropped in a baby's crib, bogus non-judicial warrants leading to midnite swat raids. And the red-dog old lady shooting)
Add in the "let's roll the bearcat sniper team" aspect like the kid in Cherokee county, and it's sobering
Causes more (fatal) problems than its worth.
YUUUP.
I get that people want to be "aggressive" but sitting down with a body count over weed and maybe meth is pretty heavy.
It's a game. These people will be screw ups their entire life. You will catch them eventually without recreating the Iran Hostage Embassy.
Which, despite being a military operation, would have met the exceedingly high litmus for a no knock.
FWIW I wish they would decriminalize it all. If you want to OD or catch HIV or be shiftless your whole life, have fun. Better them than me.
Absolutely not worth killing or dying over.
Plus all these "CIs" are snitches trying to make a deal. They'd pin the Lindbergh Caper on their own mother if it would help.
So if the Oakley squad wants to be super hooah with shaved heads and goatees they can do it without me.
Eurodriver
03-19-17, 17:56
Sorry guys but... When you bust someone's door down in the middle of the night you should expect to be shot! No Knock warrants are bullshit.
Don't commit crimes and you won't get shot by the police in the middle of the night.
Dist. Expert 26
03-19-17, 17:58
Don't commit crimes (or have neighbors that commit crimes) and you won't get shot by the police in the middle of the night.
Fixed it for you.
Eurodriver
03-19-17, 18:04
Fixed it for you.
You're on your way to a ban, man. Hoping to steer you away from the BS you are espousing because this forum doesn't tolerate that kind of talk.
Police have a lot of techniques in their toolbox. One of those is no-knocks. Banning them outright is a dangerous practice for LEOs and the civilian population.
In all fairness, there are highly extenuating circumstances that would facilitate a no knock. It would have to be predicated on preservation of life (hostage, kidnapping) and would require a lot of rehearsal. Like a lot.
Coal Dragger
03-19-17, 18:15
In my opinion cops who get shot and killed on a no knock are deserving of no more legal protection or standing than a common home invader. If I were on a jury for some poor bastard accused of killing a cop who was doing a no knock, there is no way in hell I elect to convict them. I don't give a **** how bad of a shit bag they are, by not knocking the police reduce the ability of the person in the dwelling to decide to not shoot the unknown hostiles coming in the door.
If I were on a jury where a cop was on trial for killing the wrong person in the wrong dwelling on a no knock, well I'm voting they go to jail for as long as possible.
When the wrong house is hit on one of these all the officers involved should be immediately terminated, charged with breaking and entering, and the department should be liable for all damages.
Dist. Expert 26
03-19-17, 18:30
You're on your way to a ban, man. Hoping to steer you away from the BS you are espousing because this forum doesn't tolerate that kind of talk.
Police have a lot of techniques in their toolbox. One of those is no-knocks. Banning them outright is a dangerous practice for LEOs and the civilian population.
You know what, you're right. I've seen the error of my ways. I now believe that every tactical team should be equipped with a Bradley, MH-6 and enough C4 to recreate Hiroshima.
Want to sell weed? Better kiss your house goodbye. And the houses within blast radius of that chain gun.
Dist. Expert 26
03-19-17, 18:33
In all fairness, there are highly extenuating circumstances that would facilitate a no knock. It would have to be predicated on preservation of life (hostage, kidnapping) and would require a lot of rehearsal. Like a lot.
I would hope that everyone here can see the distinction between a search warrant and a kinetic situation like you referenced.
But I'm still not sure if Euro is trolling or not, so there's no telling.
I would hope that everyone here can see the distinction between a search warrant and a kinetic situation like you referenced.
But I'm still not sure if Euro is trolling or not, so there's no telling.
Indeed.
I will not speak for Euro but I do not consider him trolling. It is a tool that can be abused like any other in the wrong hands but can at times of dire threat be quite necessary.
I infer that he posits that the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater and that any supervising officers take hard and long notice of the totality of the circumstance, necessity of action, alternarive methods, and take not just tactical, but strategic consideration before employing such methods
Eurodriver
03-19-17, 18:46
If I was trolling I would say that I think Mogadishu style raids should definitely be used to against US Citizens for growing plants that blue Haired Bible thumpers and big pharma want illegal.
But, I'm not. An outright ban on no knocks is unreasonable, and all legitimate no knocks are signed off by judges.
Dist. Expert 26
03-19-17, 18:51
You'll notice I never suggested a ban on such raids if the situation warrants such. My observation, supported by research, is that many departments are SWAT happy and employ tactical teams on cases where their expertise isn't truly required.
I guess where my confusion came in is the suggestion that I might be banned for expressing this opinion while others with the same ideas would not.
Add in the "let's roll the bearcat sniper team" aspect like the kid in Cherokee county, and it's sobering.
I was driving through extremely rural eastern NY/western MA Friday to airline home and passed two NYPD bearcats cruising down a road. What part of tax dollar wastage is going to that I wondered.
I believe every man and woman has the right to defend themselves, especially in their own home. You come busting in at o dark thirty doing nothing but yelling and throwing flash bangs, you shouldn't be surprised when someone starts firing back after they can't hear a thing but their ears ringing.
Criminals starting to bust in yelling "police" is an interesting point...matter of time until someone figures that out.
I think anyone would say it's one thing to kick someone's door down when there is a confirmed threat to life, but the whole idea of no knock raides because Billy and Susie like to smoke a bowl and listen to some Zeppelin has gotten to be absurd. These cases show how weak and tailored the 'evidence' is on a lot of these, and how there is basically no accountability for the cops involved. "Oops, we killed the wrong guy because he lived in apartment 5 and we wanted to level apartment 6."
... all legitimate no knocks are signed off by judges.
Like the ones mentioned before, where wording was carefully crafted, facts left out, and little bits added to make it more justifiable?
No Knocks need to be 100% outlawed on US citizens. Period.
This needs to be illegal. There are already too many laws that harm the citizens of the US in order to "protect" the police.
If the situation is so dire that they need to conduct a no knock then 99% of the time they are not the ones that need to do the entry. It is just like the cool new MRAP they got and are just dieing to use......
Will this ever be made illegal? Hell no, the government is more interested in controlling the people rather then protecting them.
Shouldn't it be just like guns? If something bad happens one time then it should be banned, right?
I got some strong opinions about no knocks that I wont share beyond....
Unless someone is potentially going to die; they are not worth it. If they flush their dope; oh well. It's still gone.
A lot that can go wrong so it better be literally life or death.
That's where I'm at. Innocent people can get killed, including cops.
If the situation is so dire that they need to conduct a no knock then 99% of the time they are not the ones that need to do the entry.
I see what you are saying, Doc. But you can't call in Rangers, SF, SEALs, etc to handle civilian, stateside criminal matters.
Even if you used FBI HRT; they are still civilian Law Enforcement.
Do I think the Oakley Bearcat crew needs to handle it? No.
In all things a continuum.
99.99% of no knocks are unnecessary, but that 0.01% keeps it in the pile.
Though I would argue if it is that bad then you don't really need a warrant due to the exigency of the situation.
But....
Lessay you got some guy who has kidnapped a boy. You have a very solid lead and there is a window between him going from catamite to cat food. You have a solid ID. You have the right house. You have all the pieces. Time is a factor. He leaves the house sparringly or has a partner. I'm talking John Wayne Gacy/Adam Walsh stuff here.
There is an opportunity to preserve life and announcing one's presence may shift the paradigm to where the victim is killed.
Very rare circumstance but not one where you want hands tied whether you send in local, state, or federal to execute it.
But again, I concur. As it stands, over abused, used by the underqualified, and should be much more unheard of than it is.
But that 0.01% nags at me too much.
JMHO
Warrants are dangerous enough even with uniforms and announced so why people want to make it more dangerous by trying to be sneaky pete confounds me.
No matter how you do it, it is dangerous anyways. And you better know what you are doing.
I would...as much as I hate to admit...rather people have that unspoken understanding of "good faith". Oh well. Dope gets flushed. They picking me up on a warrant. I'll get out anyway.
Because I have yet to go in a house or project that didn't have kids, women, or elderly in it.
But now we are broaching my little comfort zone and I got my hang ups and poor experiences
But I am with you
Don't commit crimes and you won't get shot by the police in the middle of the night.
Don't execute no knock warrants in the middle of the night and cops won't get shot in the middle of the night. Neither will small children or family pets. LEO doing a no knock warrant are no different than any other home invader in my opinion! Defend yourself and hope the court is fair. The problem is.. The courts are not always fair. Black suits with police on the back give you more cred in court than some poor bastard that lives in the duplex next door the meth lab. I loved and respected law enforcement for many years but the longer I live the less I do.
No knocks are like guns. Are you saying that you support gun bans because a certain % of the population abuses or misuses them? If not than the same applies to no knocks. It's just a tool. Some departments are too happy to use them so they can justify their budgets. Some departments use them to save lives.
Use your brain and see if there is a way to better control how the tool is used so that innocent people aren't put in danger needlessly. Maybe they should be banned if the goal is to stop evidence destruction. Maybe they should ONLY be used when a threat to life is present.
Banning a useful tool from EVERYONE because some don't use it right is on par with banning guns.
Don't commit crimes and you won't get shot by the police in the middle of the night.
Unfortunately in several instances the police have hit the wrong house and homeowners legally exercising their rights have been killed. I've never understood why you want to do a no-knock warrant at 2:00AM on a marijuana grow. I recently redid our bathroom upgraded the toilet to that one that flushes a bucket of golf balls. Even that bad boy wouldn't take care of a legit dealer's stash.
Bottom line is competent, well thought out operations rarely go off the rails, it's almost always the guys who think the basics are beneath them or the teams who just want to do everything dynamic that screw the pooch. Sometimes it is admin.
Banning a useful tool from EVERYONE because some don't use it right is on par with banning guns.
Except for one minor detail, the government and law enforcement don't have the guaranteed right to "no knock" raids. Equating them with an actual civil right from the bill of rights is a way of thinking that is part of the problem.
Try and remember that some of those "innocent people put into danger" are the officers themselves. So before I ask a bunch of guys to kick a door with little or no warning, there better be something on the other side of that door that is worth a cop in the ER.
There are other tools if you want to rack up drug dealers, gang members, etc.
This is from Vox, I know the reputation, but I also know the information they use in this article is widely available and consistent with other research.
Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year. Civilians often pay the price when they go wrong.
Most of the time, when a person kills an intruder who breaks into his home, dressed in all black and screaming, the homeowner will avoid jail time. But what happens when the break-in was a no-knock SWAT raid, the intruder was a police officer, and the homeowner has a record?
A pair of cases in Texas are an example of how wrong no-knock raids can go, for both police and civilians, and how dangerously subjective the SWAT raid process can be. 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.
Advocates say these cases highlight racial bias in the criminal justice system, particularly when the victim is a police officer. But they also highlight the bizarre nature of no-knock raids, which have been criticized for causing unnecessary confusion and endangering innocent adults and children.
In theory, no-knock raids are supposed to be used in only the most dangerous situations. So what might be most surprising about them is how infrequently police officers get killed when they bust into suspected criminals' homes unannounced.
Why do police use no-knock raids?
It's rare that police really need to raid a home in order to bust someone for drugs. They could always set up a drug buy on the street and surround the suspect there. But police have focused on drug busts in stash houses, or in dealer's homes, for a few reasons.
For one thing, in theory, busting the house where drugs are stored in bulk disrupts the drug supply chain. For another, if they can charge a dealer with not just the drugs he happens to have on him or in his car when he's arrested, but with anything he's keeping in his house, they can slap him with a longer prison sentence. And finally, thanks to civil asset forfeiture, raiding a home lets cops seize whatever drug money (or other illegal money) is being stored there — and perhaps even the home itself — and use it for their own departments.
Over the last few decades, police have also argued successfully that there are some circumstances in which a standard "knock and announce" raid would either jeopardize police safety or make it impossible for them to fight crime.........
What are the rules for a no-knock raid?
To get a special no-knock warrant signed by a judge, police have to show that a standard "knock-and-announce" raid wouldn't work. There are two different arguments police can use for this:
The suspect is too dangerous. If police knocked and announced their presence, the suspect would have more time to get a weapon and fight.
If police knocked and announced their presence, the suspect would have time to destroy evidence of a crime before the cops got to him.
The first of those sounds pretty straightforward. The second is rather broad. If they think there are drugs in the house, and the drugs could get flushed down the toilet, police have a case for a no-knock raid. (It's been argued that this actually makes police more likely to use no-knock raids on small-time dealers rather than major ones, because major dealers would likely have too much product to flush down the toilet.)
Is it hard for police to meet those standards?
Nope. It's rare that judges deny warrants for no-knock raids.
Back in 2000, the Denver Post analyzed a year's worth of no-knock warrants and found that judges rejected five out of 163 requests. The Post also found that, 10 percent of the time, a judge would approve a no-knock raid even when police had simply asked for a standard warrant............
Unsurprisingly, proving that a subject is too dangerous for a regular warrant is pretty subjective — especially for drug searches. Often, police will assert that the suspect is "high-risk." Other times, they'll say that the suspect is "likely to be armed" because they think the suspect might have gang affiliations or because he has been convicted on weapons charges in the past or, sometimes, without any reasoning at all.
In other cases, police have said they need to conduct a no-knock SWAT raid when homeowners have legally registered guns — to the outrage of conservatives and libertarians. (It's unclear why police think that someone who is following gun-registration laws is likely to open fire on police officers, or why it's safer for them to burst into a known gun owner's house unannounced instead of knocking.)
In one case in spring 2014, police in Iowa conducted a no-knock SWAT raid on the home of people suspected of credit-card fraud, and tried to destroy the security cameras in the house. The police defended the raid afterward by saying that another person in the house — not the ones they were looking for — had a registered gun.........
For family members of loved ones killed or injured during these raids, it can be very difficult to find justice. (For a more in-depth look at the legal latitude police have to use force against civilians, read this explanation of when it's legal for a cop to shoot you.)
In May 2014, police in Georgia threw a flash-bang grenade into the crib of a 19-month-old toddler during a SWAT raid. The toddler, Bounkham Phonesavanh, was burned so badly that he was placed into a medically-induced coma. In October, a grand jury decided the officers shouldn't be charged for injuring Phonesavanh. The grand jury accepted the police chief's explanation that the officers hadn't seen any evidence there was a child in the house (despite the fact that, according to Phonesavanh's mother, there were toys in the yard) and had needed to throw the grenade to distract the suspect (who was not home at the time). Phonesavanh's family settled a lawsuit against the sheriff's department for $1 million.
In another high-profile case, Detroit police killed seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones during a no-knock raid in 2010. Stanley-Jones was sleeping on the couch when a police officer's bullet hit her skull. (The raid was being taped for an A&E Cops-style reality show called The First 48.) The officer who killed Stanley-Jones was put on trial in October 2014, but the most serious charges against him were dismissed, and the jury deadlocked on whether to convict him for reckless use of a firearm — causing the judge to declare a mistrial..........
How often do police find what they're looking for?
There isn't great data, but the ACLU's analysis showed that about 35 percent of SWAT drug raids turned up contraband, while 36 percent of them turned up nothing. (And 29 percent of SWAT reports didn't mention whether they found anything — a fact police are more likely to omit when they didn't find anything than when they did.) In forced-entry SWAT raids, the "success" rate of actually finding drugs dropped to about a 25 percent.
Not all drugs the SWAT team found were the ones they were looking for. In several cases, SWAT teams will raid a house looking for a large stash of drugs, only to find a small quantity of marijuana for personal use. But that counts as finding "contraband" in the raid report, and it's something they can arrest the homeowner for.
Sometimes, SWAT raids simply hit the wrong house. Either the address on the warrant is wrong (or police misread it), or the warrant itself is based on bad information. In the raid that killed Stanley-Jones in Detroit, for instance, police had entered the wrong apartment — the one they meant to raid was upstairs.
In 2003, the commissioner of the NYPD estimated that, of the more than 450 no-knock raids the city conducted every month, 10 percent were wrong-door raids. That estimate came after a wrong-door raid resulted in the homeowner's death: when police broke into the home of 57-year-old Alberta Spruill and threw in a flash-bang grenade, the shock gave her a fatal heart attack.
But, I'm not. An outright ban on no knocks is unreasonable, and all legitimate no knocks are signed off by judges.
1) assistant clerk-magistrate in the Cornelia Ga baby crib case. Magistrate in another problem GA case. Both poorly reviewed, both rubber stamped without any diligence. Not Judges
2) you live in a state where the supreme Court has ruled against them, will disallow evidence from no-knock
3) no one suggested a ban. There are times they make sense. But lately, many don't.
Problem cases nearly always have these elements:
-snitches
- minimal diligence (right house, confirmed criminal behavior, etc)
- experienced, professional team. Part timers
Texas has had its share of no knocks at the wrong address. I too have a problem with the frequency of using this approach.
1) assistant clerk-magistrate in the Cornelia Ga baby crib case. Magistrate in another problem GA case. Both poorly reviewed, both rubber stamped without any diligence. Not Judges
2) you live in a state where the supreme Court has ruled against them, will disallow evidence from no-knock
3) no one suggested a ban. There are times they make sense. But lately, many don't.
Problem cases nearly always have these elements:
-snitches
- minimal diligence (right house, confirmed criminal behavior, etc)
- experienced, professional team. Part timers
Quick question for you local LEOs. Do any of you work for (or know of) an agency that allows no knock warrants for anything less than officer safety such as a known violent suspect, known or suspected weapons and a concern they will be used against police, etc.?
I ask because I have a poor understanding of local LE procedures. Some are suggesting that preservation of evidence is a driving force behind the proliferation of these warrants. I've always throughly that officer safety was the impetus.
No knocks are like guns. Are you saying that you support gun bans because a certain % of the population abuses or misuses them? If not than the same applies to no knocks. It's just a tool. Some departments are too happy to use them so they can justify their budgets. Some departments use them to save lives.
Use your brain and see if there is a way to better control how the tool is used so that innocent people aren't put in danger needlessly. Maybe they should be banned if the goal is to stop evidence destruction. Maybe they should ONLY be used when a threat to life is present.
Banning a useful tool from EVERYONE because some don't use it right is on par with banning guns.
Because I want to learn, may I respectfully ask you to describe a scenario where a no-knock raid would be warranted, outside of a hostage situation, which wouldn't require a warrant anyway?
What would I have to do to deserve and warrant a no-knock raid from my local police? Please explain why announcing themselves and knocking, or simply arresting me outside the home would not be a better way to go.
Because I want to learn, may I respectfully ask you to describe a scenario where a no-knock raid would be warranted, outside of a hostage situation, which wouldn't require a warrant anyway?
What would I have to do to deserve and warrant a no-knock raid from my local police? Please explain why announcing themselves and knocking, or simply arresting me outside the home would not be a better way to go.
Human Trafficking.
It's real. It's here. I don't mean economic migrants.
Women sold off. Sometimes children.
You may only have a window and it does not meet the threshold for exigent circumstances.
Go to soon, it's a spoiler. Wait too long, you'll not get a second chance.
26 touched on something. Dynamic is not always the answer. Slow and Deliberate with a fall back plan if it looks like a bad window.
I've already touched on child abduction. Sometimes you do need that warrant and it best to shock and overwhelm so all the focus is on you and not the child.
There is a lot that necessitates advanced methodology where picking the subject up at the gas station can spoil it for the victims.
I honestly have never once cared about dying if it was worthwhile (children, the weak, etc).
But these are overall rare cases.
People wanting to reenact movies and play army over drugs can go to hell.
Quick question for you local LEOs. Do any of you work for (or know of) an agency that allows no knock warrants for anything less than officer safety such as a known violent suspect, known or suspected weapons and a concern they will be used against police, etc.?
I ask because I have a poor understanding of local LE procedures. Some are suggesting that preservation of evidence is a driving force behind the proliferation of these warrants. I've always throughly that officer safety was the impetus.
Just google 'Denver No Knock Warrants.' They got in a well-published brouhaha over the amount of no knock warrants they were serving about a decade ago.
Both officer safety and preservation of evidence were the driving forces behind no knock or knock and enter.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-20-17, 01:21
I recently redid our bathroom upgraded the toilet to that one that flushes a bucket of golf balls.
Dude, that is not the kind of fiber you need....
In forced-entry SWAT raids, the "success" rate of actually finding drugs dropped to about a 25 percent.
That is horrible. I would have assumed it was in the 90s. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Jeez, in some neighborhoods, I'd expect you to find some drugs in more than 25% of the houses. To risk LEOs and homeowners lives and destroy property with those kind of results is crazy- especially when you consider all the electronic tactical toys dept could use.
MountainRaven
03-20-17, 02:23
No knocks are like guns. Are you saying that you support gun bans because a certain % of the population abuses or misuses them? If not than the same applies to no knocks. It's just a tool. Some departments are too happy to use them so they can justify their budgets. Some departments use them to save lives.
Use your brain and see if there is a way to better control how the tool is used so that innocent people aren't put in danger needlessly. Maybe they should be banned if the goal is to stop evidence destruction. Maybe they should ONLY be used when a threat to life is present.
Banning a useful tool from EVERYONE because some don't use it right is on par with banning guns.
One is a God-given, Constitutionally-protected right of the People, the other is a privilege the state has granted itself.
Moose-Knuckle
03-20-17, 04:23
Precedent Set — Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting 3 Cops During No-Knock Raid
Corpus Christi, TX — Ray Rosas is a free man tonight after a jury of his peers found him not guilty of shooting three Corpus Christi police officers on February 19, 2015. On that day, early in the morning, CCPD executed a no-knock search warrant, forcing entry into the home without first knocking and announcing they were the police.
Rosas’ defense maintained, based on statements he made immediately following the shooting and later in jail that he did not know the men breaking into his home were police officers and there was no way he could’ve known, having been disoriented by the flash-bang stun grenade. “The case is so easy, this is a self-defense case,” said Rosas’ lawyer in closing arguments.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/no-knock-raid-exonerated-shooting-cops/
State Law that Legalized Self Defense Against Cops, Just Got Man’s Conviction Overturned
Indianapolis, Ind. – In a case of first impression, David Cupello v. State of Indiana, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed David Cupello’s conviction on charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. The court found that he exercised reasonable force under an amendment to Indiana law which legalized using force against “public servants” that unlawfully enter another person’s property.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/indiana-law-force-cops-overturned-mans-battery-officer-charge/
I am 100% against no-knocks.
Or kill the mayor's dogs due to sloppy police work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html
Don't commit crimes and you won't get shot by the police in the middle of the night.
Eurodriver
03-20-17, 06:09
I think LEOs are smart enough to know when to use no knocks and when not to. Mistakes are made in many professions and unfortunately LEOs have different stakes in the game.
Do we ban auditors from using professional judgment because a failure of the client could mean thousands of grandmothers lose their retirement?
Precedent Set — Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting 3 Cops During No-Knock Raid
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/no-knock-raid-exonerated-shooting-cops/
State Law that Legalized Self Defense Against Cops, Just Got Man’s Conviction Overturned
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/indiana-law-force-cops-overturned-mans-battery-officer-charge/
Do you have any opinion on the matter? I expected such anti-LE talk from guys like GH41, but not you.
First off let me set it straight that I am not anti LE. I have more than a few buddies who are LE at the local, state, and federal level.
With that said, let me throw a coin in with the ban "most" no knock raids. Police are humans and humans make mistakes. Conducting a no knock over drugs or petty crime is absolutely not called for and has already been pointed out in this thread to have led more than once to unneeded fatal outcomes.
A few years back my neighbor started bringing this chick around who it was all to obviously was into the drug game. Fast forward a few months later and one morning I heard my dog start barking like crazy out back. I went out back to investigate and discovered a County cop in my yard attempting to calm my dog down. The situation wasn't ever tense or dangerous. But long story short they were snooping around on account of this chick and had come into my yard thinking they were at my neighbors house.
Twist that situation into something along the lines of a pre-dawn no knock on my house instead of my neighbor's and things could have gone south quick.
Point of that long winded story is police make mistakes, just like everyone else. Circling back around to the topic at hand, a raid into someone's house over drugs seems pointless IMO. No, I don't think someone should be charged with murder if they shoot an office during one, especially if the police raided the wrong house.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like ED is just trolling again. A bit silly since he lives in the state which has restricted the use of no-knock more than any others.
And unlike accounting tools, this one bumps against a very significant amount of constitutional protection. And also puts the lives of innocent bystander at risk in many cases.
You can believe there needs to be a higher bar to justify their use and not be anti-LEO. In fact many leo including some of the swat organizations are concerned about over/mis-use. Some even on this board.
This is not a static situation... The original ruling exclusion started with a high bar to get a warrant. That has been lost in the last 20 years, the numbers bear that out.
The other big shift was to allow usage for just reasonable suspicion, never the intent of the original exclusion.
I think no-knocks are an invention from the mythical good idea fairy. On the face of it I get the idea, but did anyone ever step up and say, "you know, this might not go as well as we think"?
When I was a tactical medic and along on some no-knocks in bad neighborhoods, you know how many of the cops would say they weren't going to be near the front of the stick? Even the shieldman and breacher did not want any part of that.
wildcard600
03-20-17, 08:03
Sounds like ED is just trolling again.
Certainly seems so. Equating being against no-knocks as holding anti-LE sentiment is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum.
Certainly seems so. Equating being against no-knocks as holding anti-LE sentiment is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum.
I'd say that we have some anti-LE sentiments when a post ends with this crap:
"I loved and respected law enforcement for many years but the longer I live the less I do."
That little gem comes from post 30.
Keep in mind we are talking about one aspect of LE that is less than 1% of all LE encounters with the public. Judging LE based on such scant data is what you call going full retard.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a local LE agency that currently allows its officers to conduct no-knock warrants when there is just drugs and no concern for officer safety such as know violent felon, weapons, etc. I'm not asking about 15 years ago, I want to know about right now.
I think LEOs are smart enough to know when to use no knocks and when not to. Mistakes are made in many professions and unfortunately LEOs have different stakes in the game.
Regarding the different stakes in the game, for too long tactically unsound behavior by police officers has gotten a pass. If your poor tactics and analytical skills put you in a position where you kill or injure an innocent you should be held responsible. Period, paragraph.
I'll go even further, I would apply that to some circumstances where breaching the tactical standard of care puts you or other officers into a position where deadly force has to be used. Case in point, suicidal crazy, armed with a long gun, exits house goes open air. A less-lethal operator breaks cover and closes the distance to get range for a 12gauge less-lethal shot. Crazy guy sees him, turns towards him and another officer dumps him (the crazy guy). Crazy guy may have very well ended up needing to be killed, but it wouldn't have been at that moment save the less-lethal operator breaking cover to close the distance.
No one gets drafted into being an officer, no one gets drafted onto SWAT. You are responsible for your professional performance.
Eurodriver
03-20-17, 08:41
ED Trolling? On the pro side of a controversional LE tactic?
Well this certainly is a first.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a local LE agency that currently allows its officers to conduct no-knock warrants when there is just drugs and no concern for officer safety such as know violent felon, weapons, etc. I'm not asking about 15 years ago, I want to know about right now.
Here you go:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/utah-drug-raid-matthew-david-stewart_n_4138252.html
http://www.sltrib.com/news/2058222-155/charges-dismissed-for-utah-man-who
https://casetext.com/case/us-v-lund-4
Note on this: Radley Balko is generally hated by most cops (if they know of him) largely for this book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16043524-rise-of-the-warrior-cop His stats and cases cited are accurate, he draws conclusions that many officers don't like.
Data show that in Utah, SWAT-style tactics are overwhelmingly used to serve drug warrants
By Radley Balko August 17, 2015
In response to several high-profile incidents during police raids — including the death of a police officer and the death of a man armed with a golf club (who was not a suspect) — the Utah legislature passed a transparency law last year that requires all of the state’s police agencies to report each time their officers force entry into a private residence and each time they deploy a SWAT or tactical team. The law is similar to one passed several years ago in Maryland. The Maryland law has since expired, so Utah is currently the only state in the country that requires this sort of transparency.
We now have the first batch of numbers from the new law. Here’s what the first report shows:
The 124 police agencies that responded reported 559 “incidents” in 2014. (Again, an incident is either a forced entry into a private residence or the deployment of a SWAT or tactical team.)
Despite the requirement that every police agency issue a report, 25 percent of the state’s police departments did not. So the 559 incidents represent only 75 percent of the state’s police agencies.
83 percent of the incidents reported were to serve search warrants for drug crimes.
Collectively, the categories of “active shooter,” “barricaded suspect,” “hostage” and “violent felony warrant” comprised just over 3 percent of the incidents.
“Suicidal subject” made up an additional 1.25 percent.
A plurality of the incidents, 38.1 percent, were no-knock raids conducted at night. Another 7.6 percent were no-knock warrants conducted during the day. So a bit less than half the incidents were no-knock raids. Additionally, 18.1 percent of the warrants were served with “knock-and-announce” raids at night. Given that these raids are often conducted late at night and involve forcing entry within seconds of knocking and announcing, for all practical purposes they’re indistinguishable from no-knock raids. All told, in nearly 65 percent of these incidents the police forced entry into a home in order to serve a search warrant, without giving the occupants the opportunity to avoid violence by letting them in peacefully. (Historically, this was the entire reason for the knock-and-announce requirement.)
These tactics are typically justified on the theory that they’re used only against the most dangerous, well-armed suspects. But of the 559 incidents, just three — or 0.5 percent — turned up any firearms at all. Only one suspect fired on the police. Another 19 brandished what the police on the scene determined to be a weapon. But even here, it’s hard to know if this was because a suspect was intentionally trying to harm the officers or if the suspect mistook them for criminal intruders.
Three non-law enforcement civilians were killed last year, and three others were injured.
These figures are consistent with what we saw in Maryland, and what we’ve seen when groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have tried to collect similar information. Though SWAT teams and militarized tactics are usually justified by citing mass shootings, ambushes of police officers and incidents such as the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, they’re overwhelmingly used to serve warrants on people suspected of drug crimes.
And even those crimes are usually pretty low-level. The Utah law doesn’t require police agencies to report how much contraband they found or what charges resulted. But in Prince George’s County, Md., for example, police conducted more than one raid per day in 2009, more than half of which were to serve warrants for misdemeanors that the FBI calls “nonserious felonies.” Just 6 percent of the state’s SWAT deployments in 2009 were in response to an imminent threat such as a barricaded suspect, an escaped felon or an active shooter.
Maryland averaged about 4.5 SWAT raids per day when the transparency law was in effect. In Utah, it’s about 1.5, although it’s hard to say for sure given that a quarter of the state’s police agencies didn’t issue reports. Maryland’s population is about twice that of Utah, and its crime rate is substantially higher. In 2009, the average Maryland police agency conducted 43.5 raids per year. In Utah last year, the average police agency (among those that issued a report) conducted just 4.5.
An ACLU report issued last year analyzed 800 SWAT deployments by 20 police departments around the country from 2011-2012. That report found that just 7 percent of those deployments were in response to imminent threats. About 80 percent were to serve search warrants, and about 60 percent were to serve warrants for drugs. In 36 percent of the raids, the police found no contraband at all. Another study of Massachusetts SWAT teams released last month found that of the 21 times they were deployed to serve a drug warrant, they found illegal drugs just five times.
The good news in Utah is that the state has become something of a trailblazer when it comes to police reform, and more change is on the way. (The reforms there are thanks in great part to the work of Connor Boyack at the Libertas Institute.) A new law passed this year will require yet more data collection. More significantly, police agencies in Utah will also be forbidden from forcing entry into a home if they suspect no more than mere possession or personal use of an illicit drug. They’ll have to show evidence of actual distribution. It would be better if such tactics were prohibited entirely except when a suspect poses an immediate threat to others, but as far as I know, Utah is the only state in the country to bar them for mere possession or use. That’s at least a start.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a local LE agency that currently allows its officers to conduct no-knock warrants when this is just drugs and no concern for officer safety such as know violent felon, weapons, etc.
Maybe you'll get an answer, who knows.
The problematic GA cases, which are pretty well documented, all have at their heart snitches purporting drug crimes with minimal if any investigation work. And absolutely zero evidence to support concerns about armed felons.
In the Cornelia case the officer alluded to weapons being present, but had no proof or evidence to support it or the alleged drug sales. It was a drug case at its heart.
The Hooks case in Dublin is less clear, but again it was a snitch based drug accusations against a local businessman with no criminal record and who in fact, held security clearances, did work on military bases, etc. I've not read the warrant for that one yet.
Katherine Johnson was bad info/wrong address by a very aggressive "red dog" unit. Ultimately they were found guilty of planting evidence and disbanded
The issue is that with or without "officer safety" justification, the bar is very low to substantiate those claims. If practiced at all.
Again, assistant clerk magistrates can sign off on these things.
Entering the den of felons known to be armed? No knock makes perfect sense.
Snitch says "I know a guy dealing drugs" and 2 hours later with no further investigation a NK warrant is executed in the middle of the night on a citizen with no previous record?
That's a problem. And against the intent of the original exclusion jurisprudence.
Would you let 1st year nurses approve risky surgical procedures based on a 15 minute review? That's about what allowing assistant clerk-magistrate approve no-knocks is like.
And remember, exigent circumstances bypass the need for warrants already.
There needs to be a balance. Maybe some states/agencies have that balance. Clearly some are having issues finding it.
When bypassing the 4th amendment should there be some "first, do no harm" consideration to balance safety of bystanders with officer safety? And a high bar as originally intended to justify usage? (Read the original rulings to see how far it's drifted)
wildcard600
03-20-17, 08:54
I'd say that we have some anti-LE sentiments when a post ends with this crap:
That little gem comes from post 30.
Keep in mind we are talking about one aspect of LE that is less than 1% of all LE encounters with the public. Judging LE based on such scant data is what you call going full retard.
Sorry, missed that little "gem". My statement was directed at his responses to Dist. Expert 26 and Moose Knuckle, (the latter IIRC works in LE). Making a remark criticizing a tactic that has been shown to have been used under questionable circumstances in the past is a far cry from passing judgement on LE. I also don't agree with how many instances of civil asset forfeiture have been handled, but that doesn't mean I am "anti-cop".
ED Trolling? On the pro side of a controversional LE tactic?
Well this certainly is a first.
How many people in this thread have any first hand experience with the receiving end of this issue? Has anyone had the cops come through their door at night? Any family members been proned at 0500 hours? Any friends suffered this indignity?
I'm still trying to get a handle on the scope of this problem.
Eurodriver
03-20-17, 09:01
How many people in this thread have any first hand experience with the receiving end of this issue? Has anyone had the cops come through their door at night? Any family members been proned at 0500 hours? Any friends suffered this indignity?
I'm still trying to get a handle on the scope of this problem.
As stated, Florida is essentially a no-knock free state so experiences among both the drug dealing population and LE with NKs are nill
How many people in this thread have any first hand experience with the receiving end of this issue? Has anyone had the cops come through their door at night? Any family members been proned at 0500 hours? Any friends suffered this indignity?
I'm still trying to get a handle on the scope of this problem.
Two posts up, just one state's problem.
Certainly seems so. Equating being against no-knocks as holding anti-LE sentiment is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum.
^^^ This, I will give him the benefit of calling him the devils advocate instead of a troll...
I am pro LE and prove it with my wallet...but this is a no brainer, it shouldn't be happening anywhere in the CONUS.
wildcard600
03-20-17, 09:21
How many people in this thread have any first hand experience with the receiving end of this issue? Has anyone had the cops come through their door at night? Any family members been proned at 0500 hours? Any friends suffered this indignity?
I'm still trying to get a handle on the scope of this problem.
So we need to have personally been affected by a policy to hold an opinion on it ?
Two posts up, just one state's problem.
Respectfully, I'm looking for LEOs who know of agencies that currently allow NKWs for simple drug busts without concern for weapons or officer safety. I'm not looking for what happened in the past, examples of officers violating their department policy, or officers misrepresenting information on warrants. A simple listing of the agencies is sufficient.
I'm also interested in hearing from forum members who have personal experience with this issue.
I'm asking this because I'm not aware of any LE organization that currently allows NKW for simple drug busts, and I have no family members, friends, or close associates who have been touched by this problem. However, I want to keep an open mind.
Law enforcement agencies are not likely to post their no knock policies. You must remember that under our system, within each county of every state the law enforcement fabric is made up of a mixed collection separate agencies who in many cases don't get along with each other. If no knock warrants are decreasing in frequency, it's because of liability concerns and outcry against mistakes with tragic consequences. I do agree that since they represent a minute number of law enforcement activities, no valid generalizations can be made about law enforcement in general. Trends including strategy and tactics come and go and change as they are evaluated. Another point is that communities vary widely. What police must do in St Louis might never be done in others. I don't bash cops. When I travel from Central Texas to Southwest Mississippi(my home), I pass through a large number of police jurisdictions. I drive like an old school teacher and never speed. Yet, I always use a radar detector so I can slow down from legal to 5 mph below. I'm attempting to avoid being pulled over. Why? Because I know what can happen or might happen during traffic stops. I know what has happened. I'm just careful.
Did some digging. It was not an assistant clerk magistrate for the Cornelia case, that was another problem case in Massachusetts.
It was the County Magistrate who approved the no-knock warrant. So let's talk about requirements to be a County magistrate in Georgia:
-Age 25 years old or older and
- have a high school diploma.
That's it. You don't have to be an attorney, or have any other court experience. Some are elected, some are appointed.
Here's the biography of the current Habersham County magistrate:
Biography
Prior to his appointment to the court, Johnson served as captain and chief investigator for the Rabun County Sheriff's Office. He has also previously served as the assistant chief of the Clarkesville Police Department and as a deputy magistrate judge for*White County*from 2001 to 2003
If you are familiar with Georgia you will recognize these County names. And remember some other problematic issues with many of the agencies and their policies. They are also major meth zones.
His predecessor at least was a real judge with a JD. (Juris Doctor)
Duties of a GA Magistrate Court:
Small claims ($0-$5,000) cases.
Mental Health cases.
Emergency civil protection/ restraining orders.
Misdemeanor preliminary hearings.
Juvenile cases.
Traffic infractions
Point being: if you are expecting serious jurisprudence and careful consideration of all the facts before no knocks are approved, that's not the case in many parts of the country.
And GA is not alone, there are other states seeing increasing problems.
Maybe some states have it figured out.
And maybe the majority of noknock warrants are okay.
But when they go bad, and they do, they go really bad.
So does it really make sense to have a guy with a high school degree at least 25 years of age and no other requirements approving noknock warrants with minimal review? Is that what we're defending?
Because I want to learn, may I respectfully ask you to describe a scenario where a no-knock raid would be warranted, outside of a hostage situation, which wouldn't require a warrant anyway?
What would I have to do to deserve and warrant a no-knock raid from my local police? Please explain why announcing themselves and knocking, or simply arresting me outside the home would not be a better way to go.
Recovery of a kidnap victim. Rescue of a hostage. Capture of a known violent suspect (aka he just robbed a bank and shot up the place and he is hiding in there. Kind of like Dorner). Rescue/release of human trafficking victims. Capture of a potential terrorist.
There is a laundry list of items that require more aggressive tactics than knock and announce. Some maybe dynamic enough that a warrant may not be needed. Others may be raids as a result of long term investigation.
Do you want to be the guy to go knock on terror cells door asking nicely to please don't blow yourself up and come with us? I know I don't.
One is a God-given, Constitutionally-protected right of the People, the other is a privilege the state has granted itself.
Agree 100% from a legal/Constitutional POV. From a philosophical POV banning tool A due to abuse by some is the same as banning tool B due to abuse by some.
I am not suggesting that we give LEO a pass on the whole No-Knock thing, but rather that we step away from the bath water and think logically instead of emotionally. As the Vox article states there were over 20k no knocks executed and we've come up with a dozen or so bad cases. So is someone stirring the pot or is this really a case of rampant Leo abuse of power? Again we need to do our best to minimize the bad without hampering the ability to do good. It's not rocket surgery.
There are cases where dynamic entry is the best possible choice. Procedures AND laws should filter the application into those categories.
Maybe a way to naturally limit the use is to strip away immunity when organizations and judges operate outside of those few critical cases.
When you can be "swatted" with as little as a a phone call when streaming on the youtubes, twitch, whatever, we have a real problem.
Just saying.
We have people trolling people with over active SWAT teams, and little to no real knowledge of a threat or true incident.
Just my two cents.
ETA: Crap... Now I will be watching out front all day. Be niiice guuyz.
...And maybe the majority of noknock warrants are okay.
But when they go bad, and they do, they go really bad.
So does it really make sense to have a guy with a high school degree at least 25 years of age and no other requirements approving noknock warrants with minimal review? Is that what we're defending?
Of course it doesn't make sense and nobody is suggesting that NKW be approached in such a manner. I do think there is a middle ground to NKW between never and Barney Fife signing the warrant. I also would like more data on the scope of the issue outside of case reports.
Digital_Damage
03-20-17, 10:28
Ya this will get locked up soon...
So before that happens I want to get my experience into the mix.
I was on the receiving end of a no-knock...
They got the wrong house tried to trump up charges, and even tried to do some "this looks like drugs" stuff. I was held at gun point, thrown to the ground etc...
My home at the time was totally wired with hidden cameras and Battery backup at the time. I also do an annual lifestyle poly...
The DA found out about my background knew they did not have a case and tried to force me to sign a plea to drop charges that would also state nothing was their fault.
I rejected it, went to court go the case thrown. Then sued, and got a nice settlement.
No Knocks have NO place with local law enforcement, I can see federal needing it. But locals using it is ****ing stupid.
I can't speak for the rest of the country but I can speak about my county(over a million residents). Getting a search warrant is very difficult and getting a provision such as a no knock provision is even more difficult. We rarely do no knocks and when we do its for good reason. Go to http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article690.htm#c690.30 this is the section of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law that covers search warrants.
no knock provision- (b) A request that the search warrant authorize the executing police
officer to enter premises to be searched without giving notice of his
authority and purpose, upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to
believe that (i) the property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed
or disposed of, or (ii) the giving of such notice may endanger the life
or safety of the executing officer or another person, or (iii) in the
case of an application for a search warrant as defined in paragraph (b)
of subdivision two of section 690.05 for the purpose of searching for
and arresting a person who is the subject of a warrant for a felony, the
person sought is likely to commit another felony, or may endanger the
life or safety of the executing officer or another person.
Any request made pursuant to this subdivision must be accompanied and
supported by allegations of fact of a kind prescribed in paragraph (c)
of subdivision two.
No one here gets off on kicking someone's door in, when we do its with GOOD reason.. I have never seen a no knock executed for the reason; drugs/marijuana being destroyed or disposed of(section i). I know some of you find it hard to believe that we are here to protect and serve, half of us in my Dept. have military backgrounds and some are still active.
Ya this will get locked up soon...
So before that happens I want to get my experience into the mix.
I was on the receiving end of a no-knock...
They got the wrong house tried to trump up charges, and even tried to do some "this looks like drugs" stuff. I was held at gun point, thrown to the ground etc...
My home at the time was totally wired with hidden cameras and Battery backup at the time. I also do an annual lifestyle poly...
The DA found out about my background knew they did not have a case and tried to force me to sign a plea to drop charges that would also state nothing was their fault.
I rejected it, went to court go the case thrown. Then sued, and got a nice settlement.
No Knocks have NO place with local law enforcement, I can see federal needing it. But locals using it is ****ing stupid.
Thank you for posting your experience.
Of course it doesn't make sense and nobody is suggesting that NKW be approached in such a manner. I do think there is a middle ground to NKW between never and Barney Fife signing the warrant. I also would like more data on the scope of the issue outside of case reports.
You've heard from several sources that the 'officer safety' and 'destruction of evidence' standards have been watered down so to speak.
You've heard from numerous sources that it is a continuing problem.
Criminal cases take a certain period of time to wend through the court system, as do civil cases for damages.
It is doubtful that you are going to get an officer on this board to say 'yep I work for Fvckknuckle Junction PD and we don't ever knock.'
So, respectfully, give it a rest. No knock warrants continue to be a problem. They either need more stringent oversight or more rigorous examination before they are granted.
Ya this will get locked up soon...
So before that happens I want to get my experience into the mix.
I was on the receiving end of a no-knock...
They got the wrong house tried to trump up charges, and even tried to do some "this looks like drugs" stuff. I was held at gun point, thrown to the ground etc...
My home at the time was totally wired with hidden cameras and Battery backup at the time. I also do an annual lifestyle poly...
The DA found out about my background knew they did not have a case and tried to force me to sign a plea to drop charges that would also state nothing was their fault.
I rejected it, went to court go the case thrown. Then sued, and got a nice settlement.
No Knocks have NO place with local law enforcement, I can see federal needing it. But locals using it is ****ing stupid.
thats terrible and i'm sorry you had to experience that. Sounds like a really bad mistake followed by malicious prosecution in an attempt to cover it up. Not what a professional police department does.
Digital_Damage
03-20-17, 10:48
I can't speak for the rest of the country but I can speak about my county(over a million residents). Getting a search warrant is very difficult and getting a provision such as a no knock provision is even more difficult. We rarely do no knocks and when we do its for good reason. Go to http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article690.htm#c690.30 this is the section of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law that covers search warrants.
no knock provision- (b) A request that the search warrant authorize the executing police
officer to enter premises to be searched without giving notice of his
authority and purpose, upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to
believe that (i) the property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed
or disposed of, or (ii) the giving of such notice may endanger the life
or safety of the executing officer or another person, or (iii) in the
case of an application for a search warrant as defined in paragraph (b)
of subdivision two of section 690.05 for the purpose of searching for
and arresting a person who is the subject of a warrant for a felony, the
person sought is likely to commit another felony, or may endanger the
life or safety of the executing officer or another person.
Any request made pursuant to this subdivision must be accompanied and
supported by allegations of fact of a kind prescribed in paragraph (c)
of subdivision two.
No one here gets off on kicking someone's door in, when we do its with GOOD reason.. I have never seen a no knock executed for the reason; drugs/marijuana being destroyed or disposed of(section i). I know some of you find it hard to believe that we are here to protect and serve, half of us in my Dept. have military backgrounds and some are still active.
Never found out what they were looking for in my situation... but they kept yelling at me "where are the drugs" Demanding that I provide the code to my safe or they were "going to brake all your shit".
Digital_Damage
03-20-17, 10:52
thats terrible and i'm sorry you had to experience that. Sounds like a really bad mistake followed by malicious prosecution in an attempt to cover it up. Not what a professional police department does.
that is the core problem... in almost all the publicly known situations where there is a mistake no one admits to it.
They hide behind "following procedure" or "we did find evidence of wrong doing". I have no confidence Local Law enforcement has the patience, training or in the case of the DA ethics to use the tool safely or effectively.
Never found out what they were looking for in my situation... but they kept yelling at me "where are the drugs" Demanding that I provide the code to my safe or they were "going to brake all your shit".
sounds like drugs, and it sounds like some jurisdictions are overusing / abusing the no knock provision. But there's a judge signing off on these too, search warrants are issued by the courts and signed off by a judge.
Of course it doesn't make sense and nobody is suggesting that NKW be approached in such a manner. I do think there is a middle ground to NKW between never and Barney Fife signing the warrant. I also would like more data on the scope of the issue outside of case reports.
If you read my earlier posts, I'm advocating for balance and appropriate diligence. The original higher bar when this exception to the exclusionary rule was approved.
As to stats, they are out there, but not easy to directly source from justice type reports. (For some obvious reasons)
I've not tracked them to the source, but many are referenced in this type of article:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1129/p03s03-ussc.html
The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 last year (2006), according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond.
Botched raids are relatively rare, but since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
ACLU documentation indicates 80% of no-knock warrants were to execute drug search warrants. But admits its very hard to determine the real number as since 2006 the courts have allowed just Reasonable Suspicion rather than probable cause. Some states have reeled that in a bit.
The only reason they even exist is an extension of the exigent circumstances exceptions to the "Exclusionary Rule". Which also has constraints that the exigent circumstances cannot be created by the police themselves.
Which is at the heart of the issue. Is a no-knock warrant itself a self fulfilling exigent circumstance?
Clearly justified for things like taking down a hardened criminal, known to be armed, etc.
Not required for hostages or immediate life threatening circumstances, they are covered by the normal exigent circumstances.
I don't agree with the anti-swat broad brush treatment in this Cato institute article:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-swat
But some of the references and points are valid:
In the 1995 case Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court for the first time ruled that at least in principle, the Fourth Amendment requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private home. In doing so, the court acknowledged the centuries-old “Castle Doctrine” from English common law, which states that a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders. The announcement requirement gives an innocent suspect the opportunity to persuade the police that they’ve targeted the wrong residence before having his home invaded. It also protects police from being targeted by innocent homeowners who have mistaken them for criminal intruders and those same homeowners from the burden of determining if the armed intruders in their home are police or criminals.
But Wilson didn’t eliminate no-knocks. In the same decision, the court recognized three broad exceptions, called “exigent circumstances,” to the announcement requirement. The most pertinent of these state that if police believe announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing their presence.
A legal no-knock raid, then, can happen in one of two ways. Police can make the case for exigent circumstances to a judge, who then issues a no-knock warrant; or police can determine at the scene that the exigent circumstances exist and make the call for a no-knock raid on the spot. In the latter case, courts will determine after the fact if the raid was legal.
In the real world, the exigent-circumstances exceptions have been so broadly interpreted since Wilson, they’ve overwhelmed the rule. No-knock raids have been justified on the flimsiest of reasons, including that the suspect was a licensed, registered gun owner (NRA, take note!), or that the mere presence of indoor plumbing could be enough to trigger the “destruction of evidence” exception.
In fact, in many places the announcement requirement is now treated more like an antiquated ritual than compliance with a suspect’s constitutional rights. In 1999, for example, the assistant police chief of El Monte, Calif., explained his department’s preferred procedure to the Los Angeles Times: “We do bang on the door and make an announcement—’It’s the police’—but it kind of runs together. If you’re sitting on the couch, it would be difficult to get to the door before they knock it down.”
Here's Justice's postion: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2002/06/31/op-olc-v026-p0044_0.pdf
we conclude that federal district court judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue no-knock warrants—i.e., warrants authorizing officers to enter certain premises to execute a warrant without first knocking or otherwise announcing their presence where circumstances (such as a known risk of serious harm to the officers or the likelihood that evidence of crime will be destroyed) justify such an entry.
Note: Clearly concerns over destruction of evidence are allowed
the Fourth Amendment imposes restrictions on the authority of federal law enforcement officers to enter a residence even when they have a valid search warrant based upon probable cause. As the Fourth Amendment states:
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. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
In applying the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that, even when they are conducting a search lawfully authorized by a warrant, officers must generally knock and announce their identity and purpose before entering a private residence to execute the warrant. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995). The Court has stressed, however, that this general principle “was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.” Id. at 934. On the contrary, there are well-established exceptions to the “knock-and-announce” requirement, primarily in situations where exigent circumstances make it necessary for officers to enter the premises without prior announcement for reasons of physical safety or in order to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence or contraband.
Reading the law and contrasting it to the problem cases it's very clear there is a problem.
Clearly not all are problems. And it's very hard to get stats on how many are questionable. (Think about who captures and creates the stats). Only ones which go to court get much scrutiny.
Just remember, there are cases where "He's an NRA member" and "I think he owns a gun" statements by meth-head snitches were justification for NK warrants (Officer Safety). Approved with 5 minutes review in the middle of the night by individuals with no legal background at least 25 years old and with a high school degree.
I can't speak for the rest of the country but I can speak about my county(over a million residents). Getting a search warrant is very difficult and getting a provision such as a no knock provision is even more difficult. We rarely do no knocks and when we do its for good reason. Go to http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article690.htm#c690.30 this is the section of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law that covers search warrants.
no knock provision- (b) A request that the search warrant authorize the executing police
officer to enter premises to be searched without giving notice of his
authority and purpose, upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to
believe that (i) the property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed
or disposed of, or (ii) the giving of such notice may endanger the life
or safety of the executing officer or another person, or (iii) in the
case of an application for a search warrant as defined in paragraph (b)
of subdivision two of section 690.05 for the purpose of searching for
and arresting a person who is the subject of a warrant for a felony, the
person sought is likely to commit another felony, or may endanger the
life or safety of the executing officer or another person.
Any request made pursuant to this subdivision must be accompanied and
supported by allegations of fact of a kind prescribed in paragraph (c)
of subdivision two.
No one here gets off on kicking someone's door in, when we do its with GOOD reason.. I have never seen a no knock executed for the reason; drugs/marijuana being destroyed or disposed of(section i). I know some of you find it hard to believe that we are here to protect and serve, half of us in my Dept. have military backgrounds and some are still active.
Thank you for providing this perspective.
But there's a judge signing off on these too, [U]search warrants are issued by the courts and signed off by a judge.[U]
Read... read the previous posts. In many areas it's handled by clerk/magistrates with no requirement to have even a legal background, much less be a Judge with a JD. To be a magistrate in GA:
- At least 25 years old
- High School Degree
Some of the problem areas it's an ex-chief LEO or similar from the next town/county over. And some magistrates are very experienced Judges wanting to do lighter work. It's the inconstancy that's the problem.
To be explicitly clear: The problem cases are probably exceptions. And not all agencies/officers make this type of mistakes. But it's prevalent enough in our area that it's topic of conversation and state rule making. It's happened in my county, adjacent counties, major metro areas, etc.
Most would agree it's a valid tool that should be allowed when justified. It is the application of that last word that is the problem as I see it. Needs to go back to the high bar for justification with appropriate due diligence. Like it was before the 90's. And certainly before 2006 when the bar was lowered further.
Especially given what's at stake (the original poster's question), or the loss of innocent bystander life.
You've heard from several sources that the 'officer safety' and 'destruction of evidence' standards have been watered down so to speak.
You've heard from numerous sources that it is a continuing problem.
Criminal cases take a certain period of time to wend through the court system, as do civil cases for damages.
It is doubtful that you are going to get an officer on this board to say 'yep I work for Fvckknuckle Junction PD and we don't ever knock.'
So, respectfully, give it a rest. No knock warrants continue to be a problem. They either need more stringent oversight or more rigorous examination before they are granted.
Of course they need more oversight. It sounds like small Ma and Pa jurisdictions with poorly trained, part-time SWAT teams are a large part of the problem (to the extent that it exists). Interesting how those small, poorly trained jurisdictions are often at the heart of America's meth/narcotic problem.
However, I'll give it a rest when the experts in this thread calling for a ban on NKWs come up with an alternative means to serving a warrant on violent felons without equally bad unintended consequences. I'll also give it a rest when someone finally cleans up the mess in post 30 where the entire profession gets judged by what someone THINKS is happening with an aspect of LE that is less than 1% of the job.
No one here gets off on kicking someone's door in, when we do its with GOOD reason.. I have never seen a no knock executed for the reason; drugs/marijuana being destroyed or disposed of(section i).
Sounds like your state has reasonable usage. I'd be curious as to what type of judge can approve them. And clearly that same standard is not being held in other states. GA and TX for sure do them for alleged drug dealing based on CI statements. Other states have as well, though some are reeling it in. GA is trying to do so.
I know some of you find it hard to believe that we are here to protect and serve, half of us in my Dept. have military backgrounds and some are still active.
Not at all hard to believe, I know it as fact. And appreciate the efforts.
But we should be able to express a concern about local implementation and interpretation without being viewed as anti-LEO.
Trust me, you would not want to defend some of the LEO work in the 3 cases I mentioned earlier. Some of the LEO are in jail (Kathryn Johnston case). In the Cornelia case the Drug Task force officer was indicted by the feds, ultimately cleared due to "no evidence it was intentional", but censured heavily about sloppy/minimal investigation. Even the defense attorney admitted the raid should not have been requested or approved. Both the officer and Magistrate resigned within days.
Eurodriver
03-20-17, 11:38
Ehhhhh
Of course they need more oversight. It sounds like small Ma and Pa jurisdictions with poorly trained, part-time SWAT teams are a large part of the problem (to the extent that it exists). Interesting how those small, poorly trained jurisdictions are often at the heart of America's meth/narcotic problem.
Very much the problem area based on what I see. Though large metro areas are not immune.
Another common thread is the "Drug Task Force" approach. Which I'm not opposed to, but they can create motivation for aggressive pursuit techniques for penny-ante stuff. Clearly was a problem or at least motivating factor in two of the notable GA cases recently.
Like most rural areas, North & South GA has a growing Meth problem. Not an easy fix. And especially problematic the meth stuff drives other crime, very strong correlation with meth activity and B&E, etc.
And N Atlanta metro has a growing suburban Heroin problem. But that's a wealthier crowd, it's peaking in some very wealthy areas.
Sounds like your state has reasonable usage. I'd be curious as to what type of judge can approve them. And clearly that same standard is not being held in other states. GA and TX for sure do them for alleged drug dealing based on CI statements. Other states have as well, though some are reeling it in. GA is trying to do so.
Not at all hard to believe, I know it as fact. And appreciate the efforts.
But we should be able to express a concern about local implementation and interpretation without being viewed as anti-LEO.
Trust me, you would not want to defend some of the LEO work in the 3 cases I mentioned earlier. Some of the LEO are in jail (Kathryn Johnston case). In the Cornelia case the Drug Task force officer was indicted by the feds, ultimately cleared due to "no evidence it was intentional", but censured heavily about sloppy/minimal investigation. Even the defense attorney admitted the raid should not have been requested or approved. Both the officer and Magistrate resigned within days.
Over here 99% of the time its a District Court or a Superior Court Judge.
Yes, I sincerely agree we should all be able to express concerns about the actions of our law enforcement/government, I didn't mean it to come off that way. In this county the commanders have public forums monthly in the communities with the civic groups, associations and what not to discuss thier concerns.
MountainRaven
03-20-17, 13:07
Of course they need more oversight. It sounds like small Ma and Pa jurisdictions with poorly trained, part-time SWAT teams are a large part of the problem (to the extent that it exists). Interesting how those small, poorly trained jurisdictions are often at the heart of America's meth/narcotic problem.
However, I'll give it a rest when the experts in this thread calling for a ban on NKWs come up with an alternative means to serving a warrant on violent felons without equally bad unintended consequences. I'll also give it a rest when someone finally cleans up the mess in post 30 where the entire profession gets judged by what someone THINKS is happening with an aspect of LE that is less than 1% of the job.
"This is the police: We have the building surrounded. Come out with your hands up!"
"This is the police: We have the building surrounded. Come out with your hands up!"
....works great until you run into the Tsarnaev brothers or an apartment full of MS13 members facing decades of federal prison time. Point being, the proper use of NKW just might save lives.
I have served on a SWAT team in the USA, and in an anti terrorist unit in Israel.
I am 100% against no knock warrants in the USA except for hostage rescue.
I do not like the militarization of the police in the USA. I do not like flash bangs being thrown into houses with small children inside them.
I don't like the balls to the walls way, that houses are raided today.
In Israel with terrorist in a house and no innocent people, use LAW rockets no problem, used a D9 to bury the terrorist inside the house and then park the D9 on top of them, no problem.
But a drug dealer that has small kids in the house, I don't like seeing flash bangs introduced into every room without knowing who is in that room .
Criminals inside the USA have the same Constitutional rights as all of us here. If we allow the police to violate these rights based on a nebulous officer safety issue it bothers me.
I am very pro Police having buried 5 friends in the USA and a lot more than that in Israel including family members.
Sounds like your state has reasonable usage. I'd be curious as to what type of judge can approve them. And clearly that same standard is not being held in other states. GA and TX for sure do them for alleged drug dealing based on CI statements. Other states have as well, though some are reeling it in. GA is trying to do so.
Not at all hard to believe, I know it as fact. And appreciate the efforts.
But we should be able to express a concern about local implementation and interpretation without being viewed as anti-LEO.
Trust me, you would not want to defend some of the LEO work in the 3 cases I mentioned earlier. Some of the LEO are in jail (Kathryn Johnston case). In the Cornelia case the Drug Task force officer was indicted by the feds, ultimately cleared due to "no evidence it was intentional", but censured heavily about sloppy/minimal investigation. Even the defense attorney admitted the raid should not have been requested or approved. Both the officer and Magistrate resigned within days.
You see, the fact that something was not intentional doesn't usually allow things to be shrugged off by the rest of us non-LEO civilians. There is a thing called negligence which still carries criminal penalties.
MountainRaven
03-20-17, 13:54
....works great until you run into the Tsarnaev brothers or an apartment full of MS13 members facing decades of federal prison time. Point being, the proper use of NKW just might save lives.
What happens, then? They start shooting?
Better to have the bad guys trading bullets with the good guys than to have good guys trading bullets with other good guys.
Quick question for you local LEOs. Do any of you work for (or know of) an agency that allows no knock warrants for anything less than officer safety such as a known violent suspect, known or suspected weapons and a concern they will be used against police, etc.?
I ask because I have a poor understanding of local LE procedures. Some are suggesting that preservation of evidence is a driving force behind the proliferation of these warrants. I've always throughly that officer safety was the impetus.
I don't know about procedure but it appears at first glance that NY law allows NKW on the basis of flushing. http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-690-35.html
(b) A request that the search warrant authorize the executing police
officer to enter premises to be searched without giving notice of his
authority and purpose, upon the ground that there is reasonable cause to
believe that (i) the property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed
or disposed of, or (ii) the giving of such notice may endanger the life
or safety of the executing officer or another person, or (iii) in the
case of an application for a search warrant as defined in paragraph (b)
of subdivision two of section 690.05 for the purpose of searching for
and arresting a person who is the subject of a warrant for a felony, the
person sought is likely to commit another felony, or may endanger the
life or safety of the executing officer or another person.
....works great until you run into the Tsarnaev brothers or an apartment full of MS13 members facing decades of federal prison time. Point being, the proper use of NKW just might save lives.
I'm all for the SWAT / SLA resolution if people don't want to cooperate.
Do you want to be the guy to go knock on terror cells door asking nicely to please don't blow yourself up and come with us? I know I don't.
I certainly do not want to be that guy.
Would a matter like this be handled by a local PD with a no-knock warrant from a magistrate of judge?
Eurodriver
03-20-17, 15:21
I have served on a SWAT team in the USA, and in an anti terrorist unit in Israel.
I am 100% against no knock warrants in the USA except for hostage rescue.
I do not like the militarization of the police in the USA. I do not like flash bangs being thrown into houses with small children inside them.
I don't like the balls to the walls way, that houses are raided today.
In Israel with terrorist in a house and no innocent people, use LAW rockets no problem, used a D9 to bury the terrorist inside the house and then park the D9 on top of them, no problem.
But a drug dealer that has small kids in the house, I don't like seeing flash bangs introduced into every room without knowing who is in that room .
Criminals inside the USA have the same Constitutional rights as all of us here. If we allow the police to violate these rights based on a nebulous officer safety issue it bothers me.
I am very pro Police having buried 5 friends in the USA and a lot more than that in Israel including family members.
http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2011/02/a4s_spreport022411f_164280a_8col.jpg
Dozer Destruction definitely happens in the USA. Dude had already killed a PD and wounded a USMS dude. Ain't got time for that.
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.
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.
Pretty sure that would be charged so long as it was in an area within the scope of the search for narcotics - the size of the magazine in your example leads me to believe it would be reasonable to search for drugs in an area where that magazine could be hidden. On the other extreme if you are serving a warrant for a stolen NASCAR racing engine and you find the magazine hidden in a drawer, probably going nowhere. Additionally plain view items in areas the officer legally enters into pursuant to the warrant are good for seizure.
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.
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.
Pretty sure that would be charged so long as it was in an area within the scope of the search for narcotics - the size of the magazine in your example leads me to believe it would be reasonable to search for drugs in an area where that magazine could be hidden. On the other extreme if you are serving a warrant for a stolen NASCAR racing engine and you find the magazine hidden in a drawer, probably going nowhere. Additionally plain view items in areas the officer legally enters into pursuant to the warrant are good for seizure.
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. :-)
Pretty sure that would be charged so long as it was in an area within the scope of the search for narcotics - the size of the magazine in your example leads me to believe it would be reasonable to search for drugs in an area where that magazine could be hidden. On the other extreme if you are serving a warrant for a stolen NASCAR racing engine and you find the magazine hidden in a drawer, probably going nowhere. Additionally plain view items in areas the officer legally enters into pursuant to the warrant are good for seizure
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?
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. :-)
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.
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?
The warrant has to be specific insofar as to what is being searched for and the areas to be searched. Writing a good warrant affidavit is an art.
Additionally, if let's say you are executing a search warrant for dope and find a dead body. You really expect the courts to say 'no, pretend you didn't find it?' The smart officers stop right there (where they found the body) and go get another warrant. Just as the guy finding the illegal magazine might want to stop and try to get a warrant for things related to manufacture or possession of illegal weapons.
The danger in searching further is tainting related evidence found after the discovery of the body or the magazine.
Exceptions to the search warrant: search incident to arrest - limited to area in immediate control of the subject arrested; you can enter and search without a warrant based on exigent circumstances - hostage rescue, 911 DV hang up, etc.; and you can most likely search a vehicle w/o a warrant based on probable cause under the Carroll Doctrine; another exemption is upon consent from the person who has legal standing to consent to the search.
The 4th is probably the most litigated Amendment, while it is hard to order then, I personally believe the 4th is our most precious Amendment. Followed by 2nd and 1st. Personally.
The warrant has to be specific insofar as to what is being searched for and the areas to be searched. Writing a good warrant affidavit is an art.
Additionally, if let's say you are executing a search warrant for dope and find a dead body. You really expect the courts to say 'no, pretend you didn't find it?' The smart officers stop right there (where they found the body) and go get another warrant. Just as the guy finding the illegal magazine might want to stop and try to get a warrant for things related to manufacture or possession of illegal weapons.
The danger in searching further is tainting related evidence found after the discovery of the body or the magazine.
Exceptions to the search warrant: search incident to arrest - limited to area in immediate control of the subject arrested; you can enter and search without a warrant based on exigent circumstances - hostage rescue, 911 DV hang up, etc.; and you can most likely search a vehicle w/o a warrant based on probable cause under the Carroll Doctrine; another exemption is upon consent from the person who has legal standing to consent to the search.
The 4th is probably the most litigated Amendment, while it is hard to order then, I personally believe the 4th is our most precious Amendment. Followed by 2nd and 1st. Personally.
I'm tracking, but where is the line drawn? Capital crime evidence (the body you mention)? Drugs found during a kiddie porn raid (or vice versa)? You live in NY and a verboten, dreaded "assault weapon" is found while searching for drugs?
I'm not sure where to draw the line but it HAS to be drawn somewhere, and cops don't need to define that point. The "fruit of the forbidden tree" comes to mind, and reluctantly I say yes, throw out the body evidence. You can use it as the genesis for a murder investigation but that evidence has to be thrown out. Sorry. If it's not then fishing expeditions (like exist now with warrants) are gonna continue. Yeah, I feel that strongly about it.....:rolleyes:
ETA---after some thought I might allow exceptions for capital crimes, namely murder. NOTHING else, and I mean absolutely nothing. Of course then some homicide detective will fudge PC to say he is looking for drugs when he has no other evidence (other than a hunch) that the subject committed a murder. See, I'm already doubting my change of heart!
It is really simple if you come across something not included in the original warrant, you get on the phone tell the judge what you were doing pursuant to warrant such and such and you found X.
Judhe will issue a telephonic warrant at that time and you send a deputy to go pick up the hard copy.
It is really simple if you come across something not included in the original warrant, you get on the phone tell the judge what you were doing pursuant to warrant such and such and you found X.
Judhe will issue a telephonic warrant at that time and you send a deputy to go pick up the hard copy.
I understand, but it still violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment. Not the practical application of it as it is used today, but the essence of it.
I understand, but it still violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment. Not the practical application of it as it is used today, but the essence of it.
Not really you there with a legal warrant looking for Y and you open the closet and find X. You tell the judge why your there and what you found.
I had a case when I was in patrol and we walked into apartment D9 which had it's front door open and... We find 3 yahoos with 5 keys of coke, 3 pistols, 2 AK's and a shotty. Problem was we thought we were in building 4 and it was building 3. But the judge ruled that with the front door open in the summer they had zero expectation of privacy.
Conviction
Not really you there with a legal warrant looking for Y and you open the closet and find X. You tell the judge why your there and what you found.
I had a case when I was in patrol and we walked into apartment D9 which had it's front door open and... We find 3 yahoos with 5 keys of coke, 3 pistols, 2 AK's and a shotty. Problem was we thought we were in building 4 and it was building 3. But the judge ruled that with the front door open in the summer they had zero expectation of privacy.
Conviction
But, back to square 1, what if the search warren was wrong, or wrongfully executed?
What if a drug raid is planned for my neigbors, and they bust in my other neighbors house accidentally and find some "right wing terrorist" items, can they ransack the house? Why? The while thing started because they were where they aught not to be.
If my house gets busted into wrongfully, is there a compensation for having my rights violated?
Dozer Destruction definitely happens in the USA. Dude had already killed a PD and wounded a USMS dude. Ain't got time for that.
Don't forget the Chris Dorner case where burners / pyrotechnics were used to kill a barricaded suspect and the Dallas shooter who was killed by a police made IED. I mean, talk about no knock...
I'm tracking, but where is the line drawn? Capital crime evidence (the body you mention)? Drugs found during a kiddie porn raid (or vice versa)? You live in NY and a verboten, dreaded "assault weapon" is found while searching for drugs?
I'm not sure where to draw the line but it HAS to be drawn somewhere, and cops don't need to define that point. The "fruit of the forbidden tree" comes to mind, and reluctantly I say yes, throw out the body evidence. You can use it as the genesis for a murder investigation but that evidence has to be thrown out. Sorry. If it's not then fishing expeditions (like exist now with warrants) are gonna continue. Yeah, I feel that strongly about it.....:rolleyes:
ETA---after some thought I might allow exceptions for capital crimes, namely murder. NOTHING else, and I mean absolutely nothing. Of course then some homicide detective will fudge PC to say he is looking for drugs when he has no other evidence (other than a hunch) that the subject committed a murder. See, I'm already doubting my change of heart!
Before you get a warrant an affidavit has to be completed and someone has to swear to it - 'the affiant.' The judge determines if there is probable cause for a warrant to issue. After the warrant is served it has to be returned to the court with a listing of the items seized. Sure officers can lie, or exaggerate to establish probable cause, but if they want to continue to draw warrants they won't. The judge's reputation is also somewhat on the line and you do not want a pissed off judge watching your every move.
Bottom line is the vast, vast, vast majority of police officers, judges and prosecuting attorneys are honest and above board. I'm pretty comfortable with the rules of evidence as they stand.
I have to be honest, the one thing I would change is that I would require tighten up procedures to ask for consent searches to ensure that subjects knew they did not have to consent.
Don't forget the Chris Dorner case where burners / pyrotechnics were used to kill a barricaded suspect and the Dallas shooter who was killed by a police made IED. I mean, talk about no knock...
Don't forget the 1985 Philadelphia bombing.
State helo drops a satchel charge on a tenement packed with a violent black separatist group who had created a non-permissive environment. Whoever survived the blast was burned alive except one adult woman and IIRC some kids.
To be fair they had bunkered down and were swapping shots with the police.
People may look on it harshly but it was 1985 and the gadgets today didn't exist. Plus gassing didn't work.
There are a few YT videos on it which I wont link as they are all left wing who give a lot of opinion and only show bits and pieces of the actual bombing.
Or as was discussed in another thread, the highway ambush of Bonnie and Clyde.
For every 99 pointless times a NKW or tactic was employed; there is at least one where it was unavoidable and necessary.
If one sets themselves up where they cannot be contacted or have a rapport built freely, then there is no other option.
I'll bring up one that is sure to raise hankles but I feel is food for discussion.
Waco.
I will say that I believe it was horridly mishandled but lets use that model.
Large compound. Lots of weapons. Lots of people adults and children. Etc.
Using this paradigm (not the actual event), you get some kids coming forward. Some claim sexual abuse. Parents withdraw kids from school. You find one parent who absconds and says she and her daughter were in honcho's harem. Daughter is 9 y/o. Rape kit shows she has had sex recently with an adult male.
How do you honestly go in?
Somewhat remote location, open line of sight, armed adults, lots of long range weapons.
You decide to pick up Honcho at a gas station. Honcho is alone. Honcho is expected back and has given orders to seal up tighter than a metal clam and stand to if he does not return.
They still have children and a hierarchical chain of command.
How do you rescue the children without walking into a slaughter or having a spoiler where kids are used as hostages or killed in a mass suicide?
I'm curious because no knock or not that is a tough nut to crack and somebody gonna die or get seriously injured.
You know something illegal is going on in there. The full scope you do not know. The adults may never have had as much as a traffic cite, but may still follow Honcho's orders and attack.
That model, again not the actual incident though similar, is a legit Kobayashi Maru.
You can't just ignore the well-being of the other kids once PC has been established, yet going in at 0 dark 30 may devolve into a bloodbath.
I'm taking issue with the attempted parallel between guns and no knocks. One is an individuals' right and the other is not.
no knocks are a bit like police stops ! not needed and pushed most likely by the political level of the force more than the working guy who carries things out
anyones signature on either of these things need to be held accountable
I'm taking issue with the attempted parallel between guns and no knocks. One is an individuals' right and the other is not.
ditto not even the same thing at all
Moose-Knuckle
03-21-17, 03:20
Ya this will get locked up soon...
So before that happens I want to get my experience into the mix.
I was on the receiving end of a no-knock...
They got the wrong house tried to trump up charges, and even tried to do some "this looks like drugs" stuff. I was held at gun point, thrown to the ground etc...
My home at the time was totally wired with hidden cameras and Battery backup at the time. I also do an annual lifestyle poly...
The DA found out about my background knew they did not have a case and tried to force me to sign a plea to drop charges that would also state nothing was their fault.
I rejected it, went to court go the case thrown. Then sued, and got a nice settlement.
No Knocks have NO place with local law enforcement, I can see federal needing it. But locals using it is ****ing stupid.
Thanks for sharing your ordeal, glad you lived to tell about it.
Another reason to have a quality and concealed home surveillance system in play.
Eurodriver
03-21-17, 07:28
I do not bite my thumb at you sir but I do bite my thumb.
Respectfully, I'm looking for LEOs who know of agencies that currently allow NKWs for simple drug busts without concern for weapons or officer safety. I'm not looking for what happened in the past, examples of officers violating their department policy, or officers misrepresenting information on warrants. A simple listing of the agencies is sufficient.
I'm also interested in hearing from forum members who have personal experience with this issue.
I'm asking this because I'm not aware of any LE organization that currently allows NKW for simple drug busts, and I have no family members, friends, or close associates who have been touched by this problem. However, I want to keep an open mind.
You might want to open that up to include dynamic knock warrants. A 3am going Bang, Bang, Bang "POLICE SEARCH WARRANT" Ram, Flash Bangs and all that might as well be a no-knock. No reasonable person is going to rouse from REM sleep, get out of bed, put on at least a bit of modesty wear and get to the front door to unlock it in time. No one. Everyone knows this so I’m not sure why the line for a knock warrant isn’t drawn at a more reasonable standard.
I have served on a SWAT team in the USA, and in an anti terrorist unit in Israel.
I am 100% against no knock warrants in the USA except for hostage rescue.
I do not like the militarization of the police in the USA. I do not like flash bangs being thrown into houses with small children inside them.
I don't like the balls to the walls way, that houses are raided today.
In Israel with terrorist in a house and no innocent people, use LAW rockets no problem, used a D9 to bury the terrorist inside the house and then park the D9 on top of them, no problem.
But a drug dealer that has small kids in the house, I don't like seeing flash bangs introduced into every room without knowing who is in that room .
Criminals inside the USA have the same Constitutional rights as all of us here. If we allow the police to violate these rights based on a nebulous officer safety issue it bothers me.
I am very pro Police having buried 5 friends in the USA and a lot more than that in Israel including family members.
I had a lot of things typed until I read this post. This is the way it should be.
You see, the fact that something was not intentional doesn't usually allow things to be shrugged off by the rest of us non-LEO civilians. There is a thing called negligence which still carries criminal penalties.
In too many cases, criminal negligence doesn't apply to law enforcement actions. You can rely on an unreliable snitch for your information, overwrite the justification because you didn't do anything more than pencil whip it, put down the wrong address because you didn't verify it, do Godawful pre-raid "planning" and literally get an innocent victim killed, but still be immune from criminal prosecution. Qualified immunity may also negatively impact a righteous civil suit as well.
http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2011/02/a4s_spreport022411f_164280a_8col.jpg
Dozer Destruction definitely happens in the USA. Dude had already killed a PD and wounded a USMS dude. Ain't got time for that.
Bought & paid for. A pot grow with kids in the house and no evidence of immediate threat of death or great bodily harm? No. Just... No...
Don't forget the Chris Dorner case where burners / pyrotechnics were used to kill a barricaded suspect and the Dallas shooter who was killed by a police made IED. I mean, talk about no knock...
Again, bought & paid for. I wouldn't care if police used an Apache helicopter with Hellfire missiles in those specific and incredibly narrow circumstances, so long as they don't incur collateral deaths or injuries. My AOR was the very first use of an armed robot to kill an armed and barricaded subject who was actively shooting at LE and citizens. They strapped an 870 to a bomb robot and capped his ass. Day before yesterday we had an officer kill a young woman who'd been running all over town shooting at people. She was in the act of shooting at other officers, so he pancaked her with his patrol car. Works for me as there was less chance of collateral damage by 4,000# cruiser, than bullets flying around in a populated area.
tl:dr, I don't think we should ban no-knock raids, but we should absolutely ban no-knock drug raids unless they're actively shoving lethal amounts of drugs down the throats of occupants. I think that would eliminate 99.99% of the bad raids. In too many cases with undesirable outcomes, the overwhelming drive to force the criminal's hand in a compressed time frame to get the conviction is a complicating factor. That applies well beyond warrant service. Some times it's just better to just slow things down and explore less violent options. JMO, YMMV
Law Enforcement in the USA has changed a lot in the last 40 years and somethings are not just right.
1. SWAT raids when their is no real need. No knock warrants in 99% of cases
2. Civil Asset Seizure as a way of raising money by both Fed and local agencies.
3. Militarization of the police I do not include the police rifle in this. Rather uniforms and attitudes.
I have fond memories of being a deputy and think we need to remember police are public servants, not the reverse.
Law Enforcement in the USA has changed a lot in the last 40 years and somethings are not just right.
1. SWAT raids when their is no real need. No knock warrants in 99% of cases
2. Civil Asset Seizure as a way of raising money by both Fed and local agencies.
3. Militarization of the police I do not include the police rifle in this. Rather uniforms and attitudes.
I have fond memories of being a deputy and think we need to remember police are public servants, not the reverse.
Yoni, I believe we have found some common ground here. Those are my thoughts exactly. Especially 'we need to remember police are public servants, not the reverse.'
. She was in the act of shooting at other officers, so he pancaked her with his patrol car. Works for me as there was less chance of collateral damage by 4,000# cruiser, than bullets flying around in a populated area.
Totally legitimate use of force. Glad the officer recognized that was probably the safest and quickest solution to the threat posed to the public.
Totally legitimate use of force. Glad the officer recognized that was probably the safest and quickest solution to the threat posed to the public.
Yeah, but it didn't stop the snowflakes from melting over it. :(
She was a white trash meth-mouth with a LONG history of disregard for public safety. She spent the better part of a week running around shooting at people randomly! :(
Outlander Systems
03-21-17, 14:35
Everyone needs to chill dafuq out and read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html
Then come back, and les' talk.
Yeah, but it didn't stop the snowflakes from melting over it. :(
She was a white trash meth-mouth with a LONG history of disregard for public safety. She spent the better part of a week running around shooting at people randomly! :(
To bad anyone has to die, but sounds like she brought it on. It is often very rough on the officer forced to take such action.
Years ago for NCIC hits our state troopers used to get a small decal to put on their units a la fighter pilot style. You should make up a pedestrian with a gun emblem for this guy's cruiser - that would throw gas on the fire for the special snowflakes.
Obviously, for the psychological well-being of the officer involved, don't do such a thing, but the thought of the snowflakes melting down is 'delish.'
You might want to open that up to include dynamic knock warrants. A 3am going Bang, Bang, Bang "POLICE SEARCH WARRANT" Ram, Flash Bangs and all that might as well be a no-knock. No reasonable person is going to rouse from REM sleep, get out of bed, put on at least a bit of modesty wear and get to the front door to unlock it in time. No one. Everyone knows this so I’m not sure why the line for a knock warrant isn’t drawn at a more reasonable standard.
I had a lot of things typed until I read this post. This is the way it should be.
In too many cases, criminal negligence doesn't apply to law enforcement actions. You can rely on an unreliable snitch for your information, overwrite the justification because you didn't do anything more than pencil whip it, put down the wrong address because you didn't verify it, do Godawful pre-raid "planning" and literally get an innocent victim killed, but still be immune from criminal prosecution. Qualified immunity may also negatively impact a righteous civil suit as well.
Bought & paid for. A pot grow with kids in the house and no evidence of immediate threat of death or great bodily harm? No. Just... No...
Again, bought & paid for. I wouldn't care if police used an Apache helicopter with Hellfire missiles in those specific and incredibly narrow circumstances, so long as they don't incur collateral deaths or injuries. My AOR was the very first use of an armed robot to kill an armed and barricaded subject who was actively shooting at LE and citizens. They strapped an 870 to a bomb robot and capped his ass. Day before yesterday we had an officer kill a young woman who'd been running all over town shooting at people. She was in the act of shooting at other officers, so he pancaked her with his patrol car. Works for me as there was less chance of collateral damage by 4,000# cruiser, than bullets flying around in a populated area.
tl:dr, I don't think we should ban no-knock raids, but we should absolutely ban no-knock drug raids unless they're actively shoving lethal amounts of drugs down the throats of occupants. I think that would eliminate 99.99% of the bad raids. In too many cases with undesirable outcomes, the overwhelming drive to force the criminal's hand in a compressed time frame to get the conviction is a complicating factor. That applies well beyond warrant service. Some times it's just better to just slow things down and explore less violent options. JMO, YMMV
Oh, I'm not complaining. Far from it. I applaud the ingenuity and would point to those examples as to part of the reason why our police have become "militarized." In other words, if you want to convince the police to be less militarized, first convince the criminals to stop using paramilitary and terrorists tactics such as IEDs, sniper ambushes on soft targets, etc.
I also agree that sharply curtailing drug raids would solve most of this problem (again, to the extent to which it exists). Having said that, I don't view a NKW served against ARMED felons who happen to be selling drugs to be a "drug raid." I call that an armed felon raid and the police are free to no knock the shit out of that as far as I'm concerned.
Everyone needs to chill dafuq out and read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html
Then come back, and les' talk.
If you are thinking what I'm thinking, we are freaking lucky that little escapade didn't end in tragedy.
Oh, I'm not complaining. Far from it. I applaud the ingenuity and would point to those examples as to part of the reason why our police have become "militarized." In other words, if you want to convince the police to be less militarized, first convince the criminals to stop using paramilitary and terrorists tactics such as IEDs, sniper ambushes on soft targets, etc.
What exactly are you referring to when you use the term 'militarized' as it applies to the police? Dress? Equipment? Tactics? Disciplined?
Yoni mentioned one of the problems in policing today - officers and agencies often don't remember, or never understood, the police are public servants, not the reverse.
Militarization plays right into that problem, it distances the police from the public. Other than wearing uniforms, and having firearms, good policing has far more similarity to COIN than it does to traditional military operations.
Outlander Systems
03-21-17, 17:16
Absofreakinglutely.
If you are thinking what I'm thinking, we are freaking lucky that little escapade didn't end in tragedy.
Long read, but interesting on No Knock Warrants
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/texas-no-knock-warrant-drugs.html?_r=0
BTW, was I suppose to feel sorry for either defendant? Hmm, let's see...
1) First, Mr. Guy. This stupid oxygen thief is lucky that he escaped natural selection for so long. Now, this piece of shit might end with a black sack over his head and a paralyzing agent in his arm - oh well. The NYT would have you believe that he faces a needle because he is black. No, he is in a pickle due to a combination of his own choices, his own stupidity, and a broken system that should have locked him in a permanent cage years ago.
2) Now, on to Mr. Magee. This brain trust decided to sell pot out of his trailer home while keeping some guns. Now, that decision, however indirectly, has contributed to the death of a cop. If this douche didn't want to face 2-10 for possession of pot and guns, maybe, just maybe, he should have dropped one of the variables from the equation like most of America. Or, maybe he should have paid better attention to his scale since he was just a few ounces over the limit with a gun. Now, his lawyer is worried that his client will be punished for the officer's death. Ummm, yeah...
What exactly are you referring to when you use the term 'militarized' as it applies to the police? Dress? Equipment? Tactics? Disciplined?
Yoni mentioned one of the problems in policing today - officers and agencies often don't remember, or never understood, the police are public servants, not the reverse.
Militarization plays right into that problem, it distances the police from the public. Other than wearing uniforms, and having firearms, good policing has far more similarity to COIN than it does to traditional military operations.
Equipment > Tactics >> Discipline >>>>> Dress
That is reflected in my mentioning the use of an IED and burners.
However, I'm sure that others have a different order so I'll defer to militarized in the general sense that has been used in this thread until your last post.
If you are thinking what I'm thinking, we are freaking lucky that little escapade didn't end in tragedy.
The problem is it wasn't a single escapade.
Everyone needs to chill dafuq out and read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/magazine/the-serial-swatter.html
Then come back, and les' talk.
I remember reading that article and I actually know a couple of people who were swat'd on Twitch. People who do that should be tried for attempted murder.
You don't even have to be the subject of the warrant. On numerous occasions the parents of some felon (who has not lived at home for years) has had their house surrounded and door kicked in by US Marshals, with "reasonable" expectation that the folks are hiding the kid. Mom and Dad get ordered to the floor, or even cuffed and taken outside while the house is cleared. If the felon is not located, the house is ransacked looking for evidence that the said felon has been living there. It happens.
Equipment > Tactics >> Discipline >>>>> Dress
That is reflected in my mentioning the use of an IED and burners.
However, I'm sure that others have a different order so I'll defer to militarized in the general sense that has been used in this thread until your last post.
Thanks. That was the first I had recalled anyone using the word militarized other than perhaps articles that had been linked from Radley Balko and the CATO Institute. This statement "first convince the criminals to stop using paramilitary and terrorists tactics such as IEDs, sniper ambushes on soft targets" lead me to believe you were talking about the patrol function.
The old saying about "When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" comes to mind.
There is no doubt that there are times when a paramilitary SWAT operation is called for. Some of the big events that gave rise to SWAT were the LAPD encounters with the SLA, the Charles Whitman/Texas Tower shootings, etc. They serve a purpose, no question about it.
That said, when you have a highly trained and armed group of adrenalin junkies sitting around waiting for the next Tsarnaev brothers shootout or Texas Tower incident, they get bored. Since they're "hammers", every warrant or bust begins to look like a "nail". It would be akin to having Delta (and believe me, I'm not remotely equating a SWAT team with Delta) doing missions regular infantry units should be doing. But there again, they get rusty and restless, so let's use them.
The old saying about "When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail" comes to mind.
There is no doubt that there are times when a paramilitary SWAT operation is called for. Some of the big events that gave rise to SWAT were the LAPD encounters with the SLA, the Charles Whitman/Texas Tower shootings, etc. They serve a purpose, no question about it.
That said, when you have a highly trained and armed group of adrenalin junkies sitting around waiting for the next Tsarnaev brothers shootout or Texas Tower incident, they get bored. Since they're "hammers", every warrant or bust begins to look like a "nail". It would be akin to having Delta (and believe me, I'm not remotely equating a SWAT team with Delta) doing missions regular infantry units should be doing. But there again, they get rusty and restless, so let's use them.
That is a great way of putting it. The thing that also needs to be considered is that very few agencies have fulltime SWAT. So training is all over the place. Some agencies go two days a month, some agencies do quarterly, it runs the gamut. Unfortunately, at some agencies it is who you are buddies with and whether you buy the cool gear.
But the critical element is operational planning. Someone is in charge of the operation when these guys hit houses. IMO that is the first link when things end tragically.
Outlander Systems
03-21-17, 19:26
Agreed.
The fact that "SWATing" could even be a thing is indicative of a need for us, as a society, to self-reflect.
The problem is it wasn't a single escapade.
I remember reading that article and I actually know a couple of people who were swat'd on Twitch. People who do that should be tried for attempted murder.
SeriousStudent
03-21-17, 21:03
A friend of mine is a well-known security researcher. He's angered some evil people. He's also been SWAT'ed multiple times. The local authorities now have his residence "flagged" so they do not respond without simply calling first.
So yeah, that is very real, and it occurs.
El Vaquero
03-21-17, 22:52
Didn't read the whole thread as it has gotten long, but Firefly hits the nail on the head in the earlier posts. I've done all types of warrants and entries and I only see the need for unannounced entry in hostage situations. The technique I prefer is arresting the bad guy as they are walking to their mailbox or getting out of their car at the grocery store. Its quick and fast and minimizes the risks and chances of errors. Then execute the search warrant.
Fear not though people (tongue in cheek, but slightly serious), many of the swat teams in my large metropolitan area have changed tactics and no longer are doing no knocks, especially those for dope (started changing a couple of years ago). Bottom line is its just not worth it. They have switched to surround and call out or just nab them on a traffic stop or outside, then execute the search warrant. As in any profession, it takes time to change old attitudes and opinions.
Other than the terrorist in Boston, where have criminals used IED in the USA?
There are other reasons that necessitate the use of a no knock warrant(not only terrorism related). One of many scenarios is that time is not on your side, you cant wait them out and grab them outside of thier premise. You need to grab them forthwith to stop a chain of events; armed / dangerous suspects that you hopefully get off guard in bed at 4-5 in the morning. But you need reliable intelligent information and a well executed plan.
Other than the terrorist in Boston, where have criminals used IED in the USA?
Not trying to be snarky as this has been a far more intelligent thread than I thought would happen but:
The San Bernadino couple (albeit devices failed)
Unabomber
Olympic Park
Columbine (though devices failed)
Oklahoma City
There is precedent.
Honestly, a single guy with a gun has never bothered me as much as a guy with a knowledge of explosives.
Averageman
03-22-17, 11:32
The Unabomber had the skill set and lived off of the grid for the most part. Had he a more "dedicated to mass evil" sort of mindset, I'm afraid of what he could have achieved.
Digital_Damage
03-22-17, 12:09
Thanks for sharing your ordeal, glad you lived to tell about it.
Another reason to have a quality and concealed home surveillance system in play.
I never suspected I would be using the footage to fight with people that were suppose to be on "my side".
I was a new father and was on the road for long periods of time, so I had it installed to keep track of the family.
Every subsequent residence has a full set of cameras going forward.
It is getting harder and harder to maintain integrity with the footage.
I hear stories where the DVR's are seized during raids and the PD claims no footage exist. So I started using a system to store the video off site.
Then I hear of stories where local authorities are cutting communications at the same time they breach. So I started having to pay for a service that uses a dedicated dish connection to transmit it to an offsite location.
My life use to be so much simpler before the event... some trust has came back, but I will prob never fully trust the local PD and DA integrity. You start to feel more on your own.
Outlander Systems
03-22-17, 12:18
Bro, real talk.
The above is making my neck hair stand up. That shit is chilling.
I never suspected I would be using the footage to fight with people that were suppose to be on "my side".
I was a new father and was on the road for long periods of time, so I had it installed to keep track of the family.
Every subsequent residence has a full set of cameras going forward.
It is getting harder and harder to maintain integrity with the footage.
I hear stories where the DVR's are seized during raids and the PD claims no footage exist. So I started using a system to store the video off site.
Then I hear of stories where local authorities are cutting communications at the same time they breach. So I started having to pay for a service that uses a dedicated dish connection to transmit it to an offsite location.
My life use to be so much simpler before the event... some trust has came back, but I will prob never fully trust the local PD and DA integrity. You start to feel more on your own.
I misspoke on my post on IED's in the USA. I should have said other than terrorism in the USA and even that thank G-D has been limited. I went through the suicide bombing campaign in Israel where it almost seemed every other day we had bombings.
Regular criminals to the best of my knowledge haven't used IED's in the USA.
Understandable.
DAs do NOT like to be proven wrong.
I'd like to say all DAs are fair and objective adherents to the law but then again they are politicians
I never suspected I would be using the footage to fight with people that were suppose to be on "my side".
I was a new father and was on the road for long periods of time, so I had it installed to keep track of the family.
Every subsequent residence has a full set of cameras going forward.
It is getting harder and harder to maintain integrity with the footage.
I hear stories where the DVR's are seized during raids and the PD claims no footage exist. So I started using a system to store the video off site.
Then I hear of stories where local authorities are cutting communications at the same time they breach. So I started having to pay for a service that uses a dedicated dish connection to transmit it to an offsite location.
My life use to be so much simpler before the event... some trust has came back, but I will prob never fully trust the local PD and DA integrity. You start to feel more on your own.
That's getting to the point where the jurisdiction of the locals over you should be eliminated. Want to investigate Damage for a misdemeanor crime? Call the State Police, turn it over to them and walk away. :(
Moose-Knuckle
03-23-17, 02:57
I never suspected I would be using the footage to fight with people that were suppose to be on "my side".
I was a new father and was on the road for long periods of time, so I had it installed to keep track of the family.
Every subsequent residence has a full set of cameras going forward.
It is getting harder and harder to maintain integrity with the footage.
I hear stories where the DVR's are seized during raids and the PD claims no footage exist. So I started using a system to store the video off site.
Then I hear of stories where local authorities are cutting communications at the same time they breach. So I started having to pay for a service that uses a dedicated dish connection to transmit it to an offsite location.
My life use to be so much simpler before the event... some trust has came back, but I will prob never fully trust the local PD and DA integrity. You start to feel more on your own.
I've been toying with the notion for awhile and thought about storing the footage via cloud as a physical DVR can be compromised. But there are concerns with who can access the footage even there, hackers.
Did your setup have audio as well?
I understand how a house's phone lines, power/gas/water, internet/wifi can be shut off prior to a raid is that what you mean by cutting communications? I haven't researched into it but there is systems that are independent albeit expensive.
PM if need be as the subject matter is sensitive.
ClearedHot
03-23-17, 04:12
Certainly seems so. Equating being against no-knocks as holding anti-LE sentiment is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum.
Eurotroll is just channeling his inner J-Dub.
Other than the terrorist in Boston, where have criminals used IED in the USA?
Not trying to be snarky as this has been a far more intelligent thread than I thought would happen but:
The San Bernadino couple (albeit devices failed)
Unabomber
Olympic Park
Columbine (though devices failed)
Oklahoma City
There is precedent.
Honestly, a single guy with a gun has never bothered me as much as a guy with a knowledge of explosives.
And don't forget the Time Square Bomber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
Truth be told, the use of IEDs has a rich history in America's gang culture:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/solution_gang_crime/pubs/bombandarsoncrimesamongamericangangmembers.pdf
However, my IED comment was in reference to just last year when the Dallas PD created an IED and delivered it by robot to kill a barricaded sniper suspect: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/07/09/bomb-robot-used-dallas-police-opens-ethical-debate/R9vuFYgGUuyl6ltNBlkTiK/story.html
Outlander Systems
03-23-17, 06:28
LMFAO.
Eurotroll is just channeling his inner J-Dub.
Digital_Damage
03-23-17, 10:50
I've been toying with the notion for awhile and thought about storing the footage via cloud as a physical DVR can be compromised. But there are concerns with who can access the footage even there, hackers.
Did your setup have audio as well?
I understand how a house's phone lines, power/gas/water, internet/wifi can be shut off prior to a raid is that what you mean by cutting communications? I haven't researched into it but there is systems that are independent albeit expensive.
PM if need be as the subject matter is sensitive.
The old system did not have audio, new one has partial audio. Only when there is motion and the system is armed.
The system I currently have is commercial grade, not cheep. Same company does many .gov facility's. Data is stored in Amazon webservices.
Yes, I mean they cut off everything to the house. Things now are sent via dish.
Digital_Damage
03-23-17, 10:52
That's getting to the point where the jurisdiction of the locals over you should be eliminated. Want to investigate Damage for a misdemeanor crime? Call the State Police, turn it over to them and walk away. :(
Original Incident was years ago, I no longer live there. But the lack of confidence is still there.
I had to go to court get charges dropped then sued and got a settlement.
platoonDaddy
03-23-17, 11:03
Other than the terrorist in Boston, where have criminals used IED in the USA?
Not trying to be snarky as this has been a far more intelligent thread than I thought would happen but:
The San Bernadino couple (albeit devices failed)
Unabomber
Olympic Park
Columbine (though devices failed)
Oklahoma City
There is precedent.
Honestly, a single guy with a gun has never bothered me as much as a guy with a knowledge of explosives.
And don't forget the Time Square Bomber https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bombing_attempt
Truth be told, the use of IEDs has a rich history in America's gang culture:
https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/solution_gang_crime/pubs/bombandarsoncrimesamongamericangangmembers.pdf
However, my IED comment was in reference to just last year when the Dallas PD created an IED and delivered it by robot to kill a barricaded sniper suspect: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/07/09/bomb-robot-used-dallas-police-opens-ethical-debate/R9vuFYgGUuyl6ltNBlkTiK/story.html
The Bath School disaster, sometimes known as the Bath School massacre, was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and 6 adults and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe killed his wife and firebombed his farm, then detonated an explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final device in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
EDIT: I am impressed that this thread hasn't gone "south". I salute all who have commented, personally speaking, it has been very educational and enlightening.
platoonDaddy
03-25-17, 07:57
Who needs a warrant, when you can run over them. Certainly much more effective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSz_pYr_YpY
Article: http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/world/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/dashcam-video-shows-oklahoma-police-running-over-killing-21-year-old-woman-firing-on-officers
While it has nothing to do with no knock warrants.....
If you are a fat girl with a revolver; dont try to outrun a police car on foot It never ends well.
While it has nothing to do with no knock warrants.....
If you are a fat girl with a revolver; dont try to outrun a police car on foot It never ends well.
Officer is on paid leave. He should get a medal. In this instance, his actions seem to be perfect. He ran her over which meant he didn't expose himself or civilians to lead in the air. Reasonable action under the circumstances. Hopefully his patrol unit didn't get too dirty so as to require extra attention. Running a MF'er over is GTG in certain situations.
Seemed like he may have slightly goosed it when he knew she was under/going under. Hope a tire spun on her face.
platoonDaddy
03-25-17, 13:55
While it has nothing to do with no knock warrants.....
If you are a fat girl with a revolver; dont try to outrun a police car on foot It never ends well.
I stated that when I posted the video.
Plus she was in a Gun-Free School Zone, therefore the officer had to use his vehicle.
The incident occurred on the 18th and released to local TV within days, is amazing.
MountainRaven
03-25-17, 14:27
I've been toying with the notion for awhile and thought about storing the footage via cloud as a physical DVR can be compromised. But there are concerns with who can access the footage even there, hackers.
Did your setup have audio as well?
I understand how a house's phone lines, power/gas/water, internet/wifi can be shut off prior to a raid is that what you mean by cutting communications? I haven't researched into it but there is systems that are independent albeit expensive.
PM if need be as the subject matter is sensitive.
What's worse: Private individuals gaining access to your camera system's records or the state destroying your camera system's records?
(Admittedly, if the state wants to, they can destroy your records as easily or even more easily than a private individual can hack them. However, this is not a capability possessed by the average law enforcement official who just realized that they kicked down the door to the wrong house.)
Moose-Knuckle
03-26-17, 05:25
What's worse: Private individuals gaining access to your camera system's records or the state destroying your camera system's records?
(Admittedly, if the state wants to, they can destroy your records as easily or even more easily than a private individual can hack them. However, this is not a capability possessed by the average law enforcement official who just realized that they kicked down the door to the wrong house.)
There both bad scenarios as we are taking about footage of one's family from inside their own home.
After lawsuits like the one mentioned above by a member, I have no doubt bad raids (wrong house) end in looking for and collecting private security footage.
Hidden cameras are the way to go and keeping your mouth shut about them. One should never speak as a rule of thumb and invoke their right to council.
One of the tells of stash houses is outside CCTV cameras so if a raid team finds cameras it will just add to their suspicion and the "ah hah we got him now".
Moose-Knuckle
03-26-17, 05:28
Officer is on paid leave. He should get a medal. In this instance, his actions seem to be perfect. He ran her over which meant he didn't expose himself or civilians to lead in the air. Reasonable action under the circumstances. Hopefully his patrol unit didn't get too dirty so as to require extra attention. Running a MF'er over is GTG in certain situations.
Seemed like he may have slightly goosed it when he knew she was under/going under. Hope a tire spun on her face.
NO shit.
She fired multiple shots at them while attempting to flee = deadly force g2g.
platoonDaddy
03-31-17, 12:47
Don’t know anything about the web site, but if accurate, very scary.
Death At Your Door: Knock-And-Talk Police Tactics Rip A Hole In The Constitution
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/death-your-door-knock-and-talk-police-tactics-rip-hole-constitution
Don’t know anything about the web site, but if accurate, very scary.
Death At Your Door: Knock-And-Talk Police Tactics Rip A Hole In The Constitution
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/death-your-door-knock-and-talk-police-tactics-rip-hole-constitution
http://www.wesh.com/article/judge-rules-in-favor-of-deputy-who-shot-killed-lake-county-man-in-2012/4436748
It is Pure BS and the fact that a judge threw out the case because Scott had a firearm.
"By any measure this is a tragic case. The court sympathizes with the plantiffs' loss. Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that - more than anything else - led to this tragedy."
That judge needs some retraining on the law.
http://www.wesh.com/article/judge-rules-in-favor-of-deputy-who-shot-killed-lake-county-man-in-2012/4436748
It is Pure BS and the fact that a judge threw out the case because Scott had a firearm.
"By any measure this is a tragic case. The court sympathizes with the plantiffs' loss. Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that - more than anything else - led to this tragedy."
That judge needs some retraining on the law.
I'm SOOOOO sure if the Alcoholic Judge heard a banging at his door and cursing at late o' clock at night, he'd mosey to the door in a nightshirt, night cap, and holding a candle in a candle holder going "Oh dearest me, gentlemen. How may I help you this late evening? Care for a beverage and fiddle faddle?"
I'm SOOOOO sure if the Alcoholic Judge heard a banging at his door and cursing at late o' clock at night, he'd mosey to the door in a nightshirt, night cap, and holding a candle in a candle holder going "Oh dearest me, gentlemen. How may I help you this late evening? Care for a beverage and fiddle faddle?"
I am sure you are 100% correct.......... ;)
http://www.wesh.com/article/judge-rules-in-favor-of-deputy-who-shot-killed-lake-county-man-in-2012/4436748
It is Pure BS and the fact that a judge threw out the case because Scott had a firearm.
"By any measure this is a tragic case. The court sympathizes with the plantiffs' loss. Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that - more than anything else - led to this tragedy."
That judge needs some retraining on the law.
Especially since it was a warrantless "knock and talk", and a neighbor had informed the police that the apartment they were banging on did not own the motorcycle.
I hope this goes to appeal. And in this particular case I do not believe the "reasonable officer" defense should apply.
I can tell you in our area a reasonable officer would expect to be met by an armed homeowner in the middle of the night unless they had flashing lights and made it very clear that it was police.
In which case it would have been the home owner's fault if he answered the door knowing it was the police with a pistol in his hand.
I've had police show up in the wee hours of the morning. I walked out to meet them and it turns out it was a taxi driver had called in a fare that said he was going in my house to get some money but actually disappeared.
When talking to one officer, another one walked up and proceeded to walk in my open back door. Doing the normal flashlight in one hand, hand on his pistol with the other hand.
I asked him to not enter as there was no reason to enter my home as we did not have a teenage son, etcetera.
The other officer told him it was okay, and he turned around.
It turned out okay, but it made me read up on exigent circumstances, Etc as the last thing I want is nervous armed officers walking through my home that had small children in the wee hours of the morning.
Ya this will get locked up soon...
So before that happens I want to get my experience into the mix.
I was on the receiving end of a no-knock...
They got the wrong house tried to trump up charges, and even tried to do some "this looks like drugs" stuff. I was held at gun point, thrown to the ground etc...
My home at the time was totally wired with hidden cameras and Battery backup at the time. I also do an annual lifestyle poly...
The DA found out about my background knew they did not have a case and tried to force me to sign a plea to drop charges that would also state nothing was their fault.
I rejected it, went to court go the case thrown. Then sued, and got a nice settlement.
No Knocks have NO place with local law enforcement, I can see federal needing it. But locals using it is ****ing stupid.
Good for you, brother!
I also think a man's domicile is his castle and should be respected as such. The nation is slipping into a Police State and few realize it - including the police.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When responding to bell or knock, I've always go to the door carrying a handgun but make great effort that it's observed by the caller. For me that's easy, because I seldom open my door if I don't know the caller. I'm carefully paranoid, sorta.
Moose-Knuckle
04-01-17, 04:08
Don’t know anything about the web site, but if accurate, very scary.
Death At Your Door: Knock-And-Talk Police Tactics Rip A Hole In The Constitution
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/death-your-door-knock-and-talk-police-tactics-rip-hole-constitution
No law says you have to answer your door and "open up".
If you see a uniformed LEO banging and yelling at your door at 0' dark-thirty, simply call 911 and ask the dispatcher if they have a unit at your residence as you suspect it might be someone impersonating an officer. That way you have time to put away your suppressed SBR with NVDs before you open your door to talk to the LEO if legit.
Similar case in Forth Worth a couple of years ago where to two rookies responded to the wrong house on a burglary call and killed the home owner . . .
Fort Worth Homeowner Shot Seven Times by Police: Autopsy Report
Kathy Waller, the victim's wife, told NBC 5 her husband grabbed a .38-caliber pistol and went outside when they noticed bright lights outside their bedroom window. While still in the bedroom, she heard yelling at about the same time as she heard gunshots, she said.
Earlier in October, one of the rookie officers involved in the shooting as fired. Officer Benjamin Hanlon was terminated for lying on a police report about finding drugs on a man during an August traffic stop not related to the Waller shooting.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Fort-Worth-Homeowner-Shot-7-Times-by-Police-Autopsy-Report-230134291.html
Kathy Waller, the victim's wife, told NBC 5 her husband grabbed a .38-caliber pistol and went outside when they noticed bright lights outside their bedroom window. While still in the bedroom, she heard yelling at about the same time as she heard gunshots, she said.
Earlier in October, one of the rookie officers involved in the shooting as fired. Officer Benjamin Hanlon was terminated for lying on a police report about finding drugs on a man during an August traffic stop not related to the Waller shooting.
I had to train my wife on this point. What happens outside is irrelevant when compared to our physical safety. Unless they're throwing Molotov cocktails at the house, we're staying inside and not opening anything. Even if police with lights and sirens are banging on my door demanding to be let in, no can do without a warrant. They can effectively and SAFELY speak with me through the door to sort out what THEIR issue is. Those are my rules on my property and they're just going to have to accept that, because I don't owe them anything.
In all but extremis situations, not a fan of no knock warrants. The barrier to get one should be far greater. Puts civilians and LE in unnecessary risk. They are overused and abused and that's not including entering the wrong location.
Moose-Knuckle
04-04-17, 02:53
I had to train my wife on this point. What happens outside is irrelevant when compared to our physical safety. Unless they're throwing Molotov cocktails at the house, we're staying inside and not opening anything. Even if police with lights and sirens are banging on my door demanding to be let in, no can do without a warrant. They can effectively and SAFELY speak with me through the door to sort out what THEIR issue is. Those are my rules on my property and they're just going to have to accept that, because I don't owe them anything.
I'm with you there.
No need to go outside when I can look out a window, my wide view security door viewer, etc.
Now if home invaders gains entry (after defeating multiple layers of security) then it's weapons free time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-f2lNqF4Rc
When asked if the marshal with the shotgun followed proper procedures, Bruce said: "The short answer is yes. He was covering an unknown threat area containing multiple subjects that a fugitive wanted for several violent felonies had just emerged from."
Also, if a bunch of armed dudes rush you, how would you even know they're legit LE? As far as I can tell, the only thing that identifies them is a decal on the ballistic shield, and maybe the guy's baseball cap. No uniforms (they aren't even dressed in the same non-uniform clothing), no badges I could see, even their vehicles are unmarked SUVs.
From reading the article, they were definitely armed for bear when picking up this guy, and probably rightfully so. No issues with that at all. But everything else is confusing.
This isn't the place to bash LE in general nor the US Marshals in particular. But their tactics seem like they're a drug cartel rolling up on a dude rather than law enforcement.
Edit: This took place a while ago, but was just posted around social media, so it's new to me. Sorry if it's old news, but I don't remember discussing it here.
Outlander Systems
04-06-17, 13:01
1) Counter-ambush
2) U.S. Marshalls = High-Risk Warrant Service (Literally about the most dangerous task for LE)
3) Cameraman: "Mup da do didda bix nood rayciss mofugga"
I wish they were hiring... :(
If you ever see that show fugitive task force or whatever you'll see this kind of approach almost every episode. They are investigators looking for criminals and NOT a SWAT team. When they find who they are looking for they gear up and go grab them. Basically a bunch of plain clothes guys throw on gear and off they go. Generally they tend to scream US Marshals warrant when they knock. Pretty sure the video picked up late or was edited. No clue about the muzzling of folks and then lighting them up with the flashlight... wasn't there have no idea what was said. I do find it odd that if they really felt threatened they didn't do squat about it just stand out in the open waiting to get lit up. Most likely someone had a case of bravado and a shotgun in the face made them be nice nice and start recording to show how racist the cops are.
On a tangential topic, I do find it odd that LEO tend to look like criminals in many cases. I've run across cops more tatted up than some of the bangers around. Is everyone undercover. What happened to looking like a professional?
Their SOG team WILL fornicate thy backside.
And you know, they aint even uppity assholes like the FBI or all Training Day like the DEA.
If they come to your house, somebody fvcked up bad.
My experience with them has been very much that they measure 6 times and cut once.
Is there a reason it isn't obvious they're USMS?
Outlander Systems
04-06-17, 15:34
Howdy,
They were most likely working plainclothes duty when they obtained the location of the kidnapper / fugitive. They may have been in a UC role, for confirmation thereof, prior to the snatch-n-grab.
HTH
Mike
Is there a reason it isn't obvious they're USMS?
ETA:
If USMS SOG showed up at my house, I'd prone myself out, cuff myself, and shackle my shanks for 'em.
Their SOG team WILL fornicate thy backside.
Ive only worked around them a few times. Every time was for violent felons (bank robbers, murderers, etc..) and every time Ive worked with them they have been nothing but the utmost professionals.
As far as their clothing, Ive never actually seen them in a uniform. They do plain clothes because they are always actively searching for the fugitive and are out on foot a lot of the times.
As far as tats in LE..... It doesn't have the stigma it used to. Plus a lot of LE are former military and that's a group that tends to have lots of tattoos.
These guys do a lot of training and shooting. It is not like normal LEO. They have Marshall markings and badges to stick on plate carriers ... can't watch video now ... but assume they are not in platesm
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-17, 17:18
Bald guy needs to be taken to firearms 101 class and beaten about the heads and shoulders. What a retard. Muzzle pointing cops hack me off. Look with your eyes.
So those guys are soooo dangerous he has to keep a muzzle pointed at them, untilllll they decide to all turn around and walk away.
Did I hear right that the videographer not only has a lawyer, he has a "felony lawyer"?
Bald guy needs to be taken to firearms 101 class and beaten about the heads and shoulders. What a retard. Muzzle pointing cops hack me off. Look with your eyes.
So those guys are soooo dangerous he has to keep a muzzle pointed at them, untilllll they decide to all turn around and walk away.
Did I hear right that the videographer not only has a lawyer, he has a "felony lawyer"?
You may not like his methods but they did deter any potential drama/flash family reunions.
Cell phone boy sold his woof tickets but did so in the house.
They knew what they were up to and why.
That seemed less like overzealousness and more like "you really do need to get on".
Their first priority was making sure nobody helped their wanted subject , or harmed him, and to ensure there was no trickery.
No yelling, no cussing, light was to not block phone as much as to retain visibilty of variable actors.
Civil rights were respected and scene integrity maintained.
Hoodrat said he had a FAMILY lawyer which imtimidates no one.
This is where the high risk warrant service is an example done right. Even if they shut all doors and watched Family Feud; I would still have expected Marshall to cover side 1 level 1 plus murder holes(aka Windows)
ClearedHot
04-07-17, 03:43
Bald guy needs to be taken to firearms 101 class and beaten about the heads and shoulders. What a retard. Muzzle pointing cops hack me off. Look with your eyes.
So those guys are soooo dangerous he has to keep a muzzle pointed at them, untilllll they decide to all turn around and walk away.
Did I hear right that the videographer not only has a lawyer, he has a "felony lawyer"?
Yeah seriously, looked like a bunch of fat mall ninjas with plate carriers. I'm surprised they didn't bound back to their vehicles after they secured their HVT. Lol.
And I think camera guy said he has a "family lawyer".
Moose-Knuckle
04-07-17, 04:45
Didn't see anything wrong in that video except the failure to follow simple instructions of go back in your house. The I didn't do nuff'n has to wonder why he had a gun trained on him the whole time lol.
"Racist azz bitches".
Yup, upstanding pillar of the community there.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.