Fighting Back From The Grave

[Hardcase]

One of the requirements for obtaining a "no knock" warrant is that there must be exigent circumstances that would make notification of the occupants and securing the premises result in the destruction of evidence or cause great threat to the officers.

Once that warrant is issued, the officers aren't required to re-verify that the exigent circumstances still exist. They aren't allowed to ignore evidence that it doesn't exist, but they don't have to check again. The assumption is that, unless otherwise informed, the exigency continues until the warrant is executed.

It seems to me that, rather than being issued for particular circumstances, in an awful lot of cases, the police just say "drugs" and a no knock warrant is automatically issued. I've seen a lot of numbers tossed around, but it seems pretty safe to figure that several tens of thousands of them are executed every year. That's a LOT.

It just seems to me that in most of the cases the entries end up either dramatically escalating the situation or causing far more damage than is necessary. If I was a police officer, I'd seriously question whether there was a less violent and safer way to apprehend a suspect and secure evidence.

 

[Carry_24/7]

Hindsight is 20/20, with that being said....

Cops take their chances with no-knock warrants. I agree with another poster that there were probably other and better chances to pick him up, such as at work.

I also agree with HarrySchell; in that they better be quick, as I don't think any home owner is wrong for shooting at their door as it comes down, whether the word "POLICE!!!" is being yelled or not.

This is another case that the local government will lose, and the local taxpayer will pay.

Once again, why did they not snag him at work, coming out of the local grocery store, or while turning the corner headed home? If they suspected he had weapons at home, shouldnt they want to confront him in a spot where full armory access was limited?

 

[Crosshair]

There's a thousand years of legal history in the USA? I don't think so.

You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".

And that's all that matters, the state law here.

"I was just following orders and the laws of the state." didn't work in Nuremberg. Sorry to be blunt, but it's bad law, bad policy, and I hope the backlash against such practices ensure they are one day no longer allowed.

 

[Onward Allusion]

You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".

Not sure if everyone knows that our law is based on English law which in turn originated in the Middle Ages. So, yup - a thousand years...close enough

 

[Onward Allusion]

johnbt

"Scary premise that owning a firearm and accessories makes you a likely drug-runner. "

That was not the basis for the warrant to search the house. He was hanging out with folks moving hundreds of pounds of pot at a time. The one load I recall being mentioned was a half a ton.

Guilty by association. This may sound damn harsh, but when one hangs with the wrong people, one has to be prepared to bring death and destruction upon themselves and/or family.

Now with that said, no-knocks in a castle-doctrine State is a very bad mix.

 

[C0untZer0]

If I were King of the world, I would have, several decades ago, made it madatory that traps be installed under each house to the main sewer line.

So 10 minutes before the police do a raid, they just activate the trap. Then when drug dealers flush their cocaine or wahtever down the drain, it all ends up in the trap, the contents of which are submitted as evidence.

 

[johnbt]

"You know what I mean"

I know what you typed. And you're right, "until recently." The law changed.

 

[Glenn Dee]

I seem to remember that we've done this subject.

I understand the emotional points of view. But some of the facts seem to getting lost in the argument. The police did in fact have a perfectly legal warrant to search the premis. The police did warn him before they entered. They surrounded the home with marked police vehicals. They whooped their sirens. The actually did knock on the door and announce. The same team had earlier served his brothers home a block or so away. This warrant was part on a larger on-going investigation.

In most jurisdictions getting a warrant to search is a fairly complicated affair. If the local justice is handing out no-knocks like haloween candy... Thats a problem of the local community. You get who you vote for.

In 25 years as a police officer and detective, I have obtained and served well over a hundred warrants to search. Maybe three or four were no knocks that I can remember. 90% of the time myself and a partner would knock on the door. Present our creds, and the warrant. Most people would just direct us to what were looking for.

My personal advise to any and everyone is this. If you point a gun at the police you can expect to be at least shot at. Not just swat... any policeman.

I'm probably a stronger critic of the police, and their modern technique than anyone here. I absoloutly hate the militerization, and politicalization (is that a word?) of the police. I'm a police purist who believes the police work for, and must answer to the people. But this IMO is a case of things working as they should. I'm sorry for the death of any person. Especially at the hands of the state. The fact that this guy was a marine has absoloutly nothing to do with anything. If that fact concerns anyone I suggest you find a homeless vet. and feed him. They all deserve better.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Actually no, the warrant was not executed legally.

Really? What law was broken? Keep in mind that it does not matter whether you like the law or not for it to be legal.

You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".

"I was just following orders and the laws of the state." didn't work in Nuremberg. Sorry to be blunt, but it's bad law, bad policy, and I hope the backlash against such practices ensure they are one day no longer allowed.

LOL, Crosshair, playing both sides of the fence at the same time while invoking Godwin's law. Really? Laws that you like you endorse and laws that you don't you compare to Nazi actions? Wow.

Interesting about the judges and juries and search warrants for the last thousand years or middle ages in Europe and what they would consider legal. This doesn't seem to be correct at all. Writs and warrants to search in England did not have to be presented to the owner or occupant before execution. This was especially true of importers and exporters who were not in residence at their warehouses or who were not actually present. These writs and warrant gave permission to the appointed officers or individuals to search and secure goods or people without first gaining permission from the owners or occupants. They need not be presented in advance before searching. This curtailed the arguments "I wasn't there when you searched and so your search is not legal. Give me back my contraband."

Under feudal law of this period, jury trials were not common. Warrants were not necessary because the holdings and lands were owned by the sovergn who was the one apt to issue such warrants, if s/he so bothered.

 

[secret_agent_man]

Whoops. Post with drawn.

 

[Rusty35]

Blanket statements are not reasonable.

 

[Wagonman]

Was there a legitimate warrant?

Were there. MARKED police vehicles and personnel on scene?

Did offender have a firearm and fail to drop it at the first sign of marked police officers?

Did offender have a background of hanging with criminal?

Was a stolen shotgun recovered at offender's residence?

If these inquiries are answered in affirmative, why is there a controversy?

 

[secret_agent_man]

If these inquiries are answered in affirmative, why is there a controversy?

Because this is America.

 

[Wagonman]

You didn't answer my question

 

[Crosshair]

Did offender have a firearm and fail to drop it at the first sign of marked police officers?

Considering you can buy hats, coats and shirts with "police" written on them at about 5,000 different online clothing stores that doesn't mean much

 

[MTT TL]

Was there a legitimate warrant?

That is a relevant fact and important. That is really the only reason the cops are not going to jail. The get out of jail free card comes in handy.

Were there. MARKED police vehicles and personnel on scene?

This is an interesting aspect. Certainly police cars did not matter since they would not have been visible on purpose since it was a no-knock. Uniformed personnel make a difference too. Given the number of home invasions by fake police these days (especially vulnerable if you are {alleged} drug dealer like this guy) he would have had good reason to suspect fake police.

Regardless he would have had a very short period of time to make a choice, if they gave him any.

Did offender have a firearm and fail to drop it at the first sign of marked police officers?

That is what the police say. He sure is dead. The police lied about the suspect shooting at them however. They lied about a lot of other stuff too. They may have lied about him dropping his gun. We will never know for sure likely.

Did offender have a background of hanging with criminal?

Offender? What was he convicted of? If hanging with a criminal is a shootable offense then we would have no professional athletic teams.

Was a stolen shotgun recovered at offender's residence?

So? There was no warrant for the shotgun. They were looking for drugs. Who says he did not buy the shotgun from someone without knowing it was stolen? Do you research all the used guns you buy?

If these inquiries are answered in affirmative, why is there a controversy?

Pretty much covered your questions. But there were a lot of other issues too.

 

[Glenn Dee]

But... But... The police did knock and announce.

 

[Glenn Dee]

And it wasnt a "DYNAMIC ENTRY"

 

[Wagonman]

Possession of a stolen shotgun does in fact make you an offender.


I don't personally research each used weapon I purchase, but, my affirmative defense is that I use an FFL and I have a reasonable expectation that if it passes through his hands it isn't hot.

Hanging with criminals isn't a capital offense, pointing your weapon at a police officer screaming "POLICE, POLICE, SERVING A SEARCH WARRANT" can be and should be.

The problem is that you are Monday morning QBing through an anti police prism

Cops lied. Guy dropped his bible when jackbooted thugs threatened his bunny and he tried to reason with them and he was FORCED to commit aggravated assault against a Police Officer.

 

[Glenn Dee]

LOL Wagonman... that the best laugh all day.