44 AMP said:
Already mentioned, the most salient points, the use of extreme force and "dynamic entry" where it doesn't seem called for. Getting the address wrong is something that has been happening since there were cops. The big difference is that today, we hear more about it, thanks to our wonderful advanced communications net.
We don't pay as much attention to it when the cops get the right address, and get shot at, or shot, that's just everyday business, right?
No, we pay attention if it's a police officer who gets shot, too. Whoever gets shot, if it is because a no-knock or dynamic entry warrant is being "served" at an incorrect address (or at a correct address where the subject hasn't lived for six months or a year or more), it simply demonstrates that these types of warrants are being overused and abused.
In the old days, for the most part search warrants were "served" in the way the word connotes -- the police knocked on the door, the occupant answered, the police handed them a copy of the warrant and said "We have a warrant to search these premises, please step aside and let us in." When served in this manner, a wrong address or a skipped subject is not a major deal, not a threat to anyone's life, because the occupant can read the warrant and point out that "This is 373 NORTH Elm Street, 373 South Elm Street is a mile south of here, on the other side of Main Street," or "This is apartment 22C, your warrant is for apartment 22G," or "My name is Horatio Hornblower, Sigmund Freud used to live here but he moved eight months ago."
When the police insist on smashing down the door "in the interest of safety," all that becomes irrelevant.
Further, if you read the laws pertaining to search warrants, they typically read in a way that is supposed to afford the servee (if that's a word -- if not, I just made it up) an opportunity to read the warrant. No knocks and dynamic entries are
supposed to be rare exceptions to the general rule regarding searches. Unfortunately, thanks to a generally spineless judiciary, these types of warrant "services" are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
For example, this is what Pennsylvania's statutes say about serving a search warrant:
234 PA Code said:
Rule 207. Manner of Entry Into Premises.
(A) A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall, before entry, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of the officer’s identity, authority, and purpose to any occupant of the premises specified in the warrant, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry.
(B) Such officer shall await a response for a reasonable period of time after this announcement of identity, authority, and purpose, unless exigent circumstances require the officer’s immediate forcible entry.
(C) If the officer is not admitted after such reasonable period, the officer may forcibly enter the premises and may use as much physical force to effect entry therein as is necessary to execute the search.
Note the multiple references to giving "reasonable" notice, and to waiting a "reasonable" time, as well as the requirement to identify himself and his authority. The exception is for "exigent circumstances." The problem is that the police (in general) are telling the courts that virtually every warrant is a case of exigent circumstances. That's a logical fallacy, because "exigent" cannot be pre-established. Exigent circumstances is when the officer is standing at the door talking to a woman who says the guy they're looking for left town, and the officer sees the guy at the end of the hall entering the bedroom. THAT's "exigent circumstances."
