Home invasions by police. Smart idea?

"On the subject of whether or not an entry into a mistaken address is or is not a home invasion......

That is very much the same as saying "Oh, I thought ths was a 55MPH zone." How about "I just got home from overseas and I'm used to driving on this side." The excuse and intent does not alter the facts of the incident.

If an enraged husband breaks down my door while under the mistaken impression that his wife is in my bed, and I shoot him as he enters my home, I am justified.

If a young thug puts on a hood and a SWAT shirt and breaks down my door intending to do me harm, and I shoot him as he enters my home, I am justified.

If a policeman breaks down my door while under the mistaken impression that he is at a drug dealer's home, and I shoot him as he enters my home, I am not justified.

Why is that?"


A young thug, an angry husband, driving on the wrong side of the road, speeding have nothing to do with you doing your job. If the address on the warrent is the address they are going into, it's not an illegal act. I agree with you that when they go into the wrong address i.e. 601 Elm on the warrant 610 Elm is where they bust the door in, they should be punished for their mistake.
 
"Don, whats wrong with airing out the laundry. There may be a better aproche than the Rambo methode in some cases. just a thought"

I never said there wasn't a better method. When dealing with vilolent criminals speed, surprise and vilolence of action are what they understand. They wouldn't give you a break if they had they had the drop on you, so I see no reason to give them any ground. Take them down hard, fast and violent.
 
I never said there wasn't a better method. When dealing with vilolent criminals speed, surprise and vilolence of action are what they understand. They wouldn't give you a break if they had they had the drop on you, so I see no reason to give them any ground. Take them down hard, fast and violent.
Click to expand...
The problem is when speed, surprise, and violence are used on non-violent criminals. There is also a problem when those tactics are used on people not named on warrants. There is also a problem when those tactics are used on people who have not commited crimes.

It may not be technically illegal for them to execute a warrant on the wrong address but that doesn't mean the department and the officers/investigators responsible should not be held accountable. People of the law should not be above it.
 
A young thug, an angry husband, driving on the wrong side of the road, speeding have nothing to do with you doing your job. If the address on the warrent is the address they are going into, it's not an illegal act. I agree with you that when they go into the wrong address i.e. 601 Elm on the warrant 610 Elm is where they bust the door in, they should be punished for their mistake.
Click to expand...
I never said it was illegal.
I said it is an unjustified shooting on the defending homeowner's part, if the officer mistakenly breaks down the wrong door unannounced in such an instance.

Regardless of the reason for the error, if a law abiding private citizen shoots a man who breaks down his door in the middle of the night, under the cover of darkness and surprise, that law abiding citizen should not end up on death row. Whether the door was torn down by the Hells Angels or Deputy Dumkins serving a warrant on the wrong residence is immaterial. The citizen was still awakened in the middle of the night to an unknown, unannounced party tearing his door down and entering his home.

Whether this is a home invasion or a mistaken legal entry is all syntax. If the home was not supposed to be entered, whether the address on the warrant is not correct, or the deputy cannot orient himself is irrelevant. You can call a dead dog a deceased canine, but that does not change it from being a dead dog. Law abiding citizens asleep in their beds do not deserve to have their doors broken down whether by SWAT teams or motorcycle gangs. If your door is broken down in the middle of the night, are you going to wait around to see if it is the police just doing their jobs?

How did we ever reach the point that a badge gives license to make these kinds of "mistakes"?

How did we ever get to the point that Cory Maye will be extecuted by the State of Mississippi for defending his home and family?
 
I know a woman who got a divorce. Apparently her husband didn't like it all that much.

So, one result for her was that about once every 6-8 months, she ended up on the business end of a SWAT style home invation, courtesy of the ex.

No drugs were involved, but that's not what the "confidential informant" told the police.

Now, maybe the 2nd (of the 4) times it happened, she should have "expected to be arrested", but not the first time. And, had she been armed and shot the first officer coming through the door, she'd be either dead or where Cory Maye is right now.

So, in addition to "accidents will happen", we have another excuse, "well, the informant said there were drugs in there".

It's interesting that we rarely hear about one of these "unfortunate incidents" unless it's drug-related.

The reason is that it's hard to arrest somebody for a crime that DOESN'T HAVE A VICTIM unless it's caught by surveillance or surprise.

Prohibition and the Bradys are working hand-in-hand to take away all our constitutional rights. And they're making good progress.
 
No problem, I_45. It's hard to discuss search warrants without drugs entering into the picture. We just want to keep the main emphasis on the original poster's topic.

No drugs were involved, but that's not what the "confidential informant" told the police.
Click to expand...
There's a problem here, but maybe not the one you suspect. How well do you know the woman? The reason I'm asking is that I strongly suspect there's more to the story.

A search warrant cannot be issued based only on an informant's allegation, even if the informant has established himself in the court's eyes as "reliable". There must be other, physical evidence to corroborate the informant's information. That could be from the result of a controlled buy of contraband (usually dope, but can also be stolen guns, etc.) , surveillance tapes, evidence collected at another location leading there, etc.

In any case, a search warrant is rarely issued based only on one piece of evidence. This is why it often takes months before action can be taken when someone reports a crack house. People don't understand what's involved, and no, we're not sitting on our behinds :D .
 
A search warrant cannot be issued based only on an informant's allegation, even if the informant has established himself in the court's eyes as "reliable".
Click to expand...
I used to think that same thing. I used to think that if a warrant has been served there is at least a decent amount of probable cause to show that the subject of the warrant has likely commited a crime.

That was until I started a forensic sciences class taught by a 20 year veteran of LE service ranging all the way from local to county to state to federal (9 years, DEA). He's often been surprised at the differences in the amount of evidence particular judges require to issue warrants. Some warrants which seem like they should've been issued immediately have taken ages while others that never should've been issued were done so on the spot.

It'd be nice if judges were always honorable and respected civil rights but that doesn't always happen. In some cases the abuses of the judges themselves may never come to light. I wouldn't dare suggest that it's a common practice, nor do I believe that it could be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. While there certainly could be more to the story of I-45's friend, perhaps their isn't. It bothers me that the latter is true in many other cases. :(

Believe me, I fully respect what you do as well as other LEOs all over the world. But like I mentioned in the other thread about complaint forms there is not a single walk of life, from law enforcement to legal benches to physicians to priesthood, that is free of the bad eggs that tarnish the reputation of the rest.
 
Well, I don't know her well enough to categorically state she's never touched drugs.

But I DO know that they didn't find anything the first, 2nd, or 3rd times and STILL went in the 4th.

You'd think they'd figure it out after a while.

All I'm trying to get across is that anti-drug hysteria allows some, perhaps not many, but some extremely dangerous abuses of our rights to slide.

All it takes is that one in a million "mistakes" if it's YOU that's targeted.

As you can probably tell, I don't support prohibition. However, if it were like it was back in the '60s, when the law actually DID try to go after the big dealers and stem the flow and DIDN'T try to rope people in using "conspiracy" but just let the smal stuff slide, I might be more open to the idea. I do realize that there needs to be some sort of control, just like with nicotine and alcohol.

Stepping away from drugs, I think it would be wise for police to think twice about raiding a house at a time when it's likely they'll awaken its possibly-armed owner, regardless of why they are doing it.

Some people sleep more heavily than others, and by the time they figure out exactly who just busted down the front door, the shots have already been fired.

Have you not ever awakened from a dream in the middle of the night and had it take you ten or fifteen seconds to realize the reality you were just in isn't there (sometimes, quite disappointingly)? Have you not ever awakened during a thunderstorm and maybe a minute later heard a loud thunderclap, and then been told by whoever's lying next to you that you had suddenly been awakened by the previous louder thunderclap, but you are unaware of that one? All you know is you are awake for some reason to hear the second one.

This has happened to me many times. If the police broke my door down under such sleep conditions, I could easily miss all the announcements they might have made, and if they're not obviously police-attired (I've seen raids down here where they even wear ski masks) I'd never know they weren't just home invaders. All I know is suddenly there, at my broken front door, is somebody I don't know.

Let's suppose a person has some sort of other issue, he's in some sort of other danger, like a threatening stalker. That person might very well sleep with his gun under his pillow. He might also sleep in the living room while under this type of stress. Let's further say that whoever's threatening this person decides to call Crimestoppers and falsely report there's a bomb factory at this person's house.

You would think the likelihood of either of these things is small, but the likelihood of both happening together is ridiculously small. Except for one thing. The causes are related. In engineering, this is called a common-mode failure, and it makes the undesired event a lot more likely. It's a formula for getting an innocent citizen to shoot a policeman.

While I certainly don't think it's ever a good idea for anybody to shoot a policeman, I'll say again what I've said elsewhere. If I'm ever on a jury in a case like this, and I can't be shown a really good life-and-death reason for the raid to have occurred in the first place, either the defendant will walk or I'll hang the jury.

We don't seem to have any problem legislating minimum sentences that judges must comply with. There should be legislation defining very specific instances wherein a judge can sign a no-knock search warrant, so that it ALWAYS works the way you suggest, Capt.
 
While I certainly don't think it's ever a good idea for anybody to shoot a policeman, I'll say again what I've said elsewhere. If I'm ever on a jury in a case like this, and I can't be shown a really good life-and-death reason for the raid to have occurred in the first place, either the defendant will walk or I'll hang the jury.
Click to expand...
Which is why the case of Cory Mayes amazes me so much...when did the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" get thrown out the window?
 
Quote:

"How does the person(s) inside the home know there is a warrant? A home invasion is in the eye of the beholder.
Not real smart."

+ 1 Gary/K.

A Home invasion, is a home invasion. It is not Constitutional to bust in the door in order to serve a warrant for something such as a failure to appear (Weaver) when all you need is to catch him coming out of the house and serve the warrant pursuant to the intent of the FF's.

It's just more fun to dress in body armor, crash in the door and point guns at everyone and scream a lot of stuff at people. At least that is how it appears on "cops" last night when they laughed at the terrified people when they told them "This is your 8:00 O'Clock Wake Up Call!"

There was a fellow in Houston several years back that was shot to death because of a wrong address, and he tried to defend himself against the unknown, unidentifed people breaking in his door.

This country has gone completely mad, to even consider the term "serving a warrant" to mean crashing in the door and throwing down on everyone in a house, in order to serve a warrant against one person who may, or may not be, inside that building.

If there is a suspicion a person is indeed harming another person inside, that is one thing. But the other is simply allowing heavily armed people to force us in to living in a total police state. Agreed, these suspects do not "mow the lawn" in many cases, so you may have to wait a while until they go out to the store to get more beer, whiskey or food, in order to Constitutionally serve a warrant.

But as a taxpayer, I am more than willing to pay for the overtime when you consider so many Americans have paid with their lives to preserve our nation, and (what used to be) it's heritage and Constitutional protections.

I'd gladly pay overtime pay if it meant preservation of Constitutional protections since today a man or woman cannot "legally" defend his own home against invasion. And if anyone considers the Constitutional aspect, the phrase "safe within our homes and our persons" I think is referred to in that document, although I do not recall the exact wording.
 
The 4th amendment reads: "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."

You might want to think on the word, "unreasonable," and how the courts have defined that word in the last 40 years. There are several other problems relating to definitions of certain words above, also.
 
After reading LEO members of thisboards reasoning, I still stand by my original view.

"dynamic entries" are nothing more than home invasions with permission slips.

The benefits are out weighed by the risks.
 
Question: What are your definitions of dynamic entries. I think many of you are wrapping a whole lot of different types of entries under the dymanic category.
I do not necessarily agree with tactical teams serving warrants (search or arrest) for minor offenses. I do agree that sometimes tactical teams should not be used. However, there are times when the situation may dictate the use of a tactical team for one of those minor offenses: i.e. heavily fortified structures, past violent history (including assualt on officer), gang-ridden neighborhood (often the perimeter teams are engaged by those neighbors), etc.
Often, you as the news watcher/reader, may not know these obstacles, but only the offense for which that person is sought.
Additionally, if a tactial team is used, the may not use a dynamic entry. But all you read about or watch are the goons in black stacked up on the porch, and so make that misinformed jump to conclusion.
 
entries

Since domestic spying is still in effect, lets don't get "tagged" because of certain words. I think that there is always a third or forth option of carrying out something like that. Yeah at the corner store or car wash, according to the offense but do it in a more refined fashion, the good person would respond better. Now some will not respond to nice professionalism, so that's what gets all that adrenaline flowing . A lot of our law enforcement come from the military where a kid can blow you up. As Officer Jack McLamb says: If they knock announcing a warrant do not go near that door, cause it's coming down and will hurt you if your near it. You might as well bow, cause at that point its too late. They have already drawn. But according to the offense, they could be more professional and nice. Yeah, I agree some laws are excessive, and there are more on the way. I encourage all LEO to study McLamb's teachings. Some judges will sign the order on a whim, and that's part of the problem too. Can you say hidden camera?
 
What worries me is the one issueing the premission slip. After viewing the posts I believe there could be a better way.
 
Redworm:

It's possible he was convicted because none of the selected jurors knew they had the right to nullify any law they want to.

You don't have to SAY that reason to use it. You just say "I have reasonable doubt".
 
There was a "Chappele Show" episode awhile back that is A+ for this discussion, he reversed what happens to white and black people while serving warrants and the white peoples golden retriever got shot on the bed. A aquaintence of mine had his pit bull shot while the cops served a warrant on him, last i checked pepper spray will render a dog usless:rolleyes:
So for all you people who are for the flash and bang warrents served just imagine the cops busting in your door and shooting your bloodhound and telling your wife to put her face on the floor with a knee in the back "stop resisting!stop resisting!":eek:
 
It seems to me the only rationale for a no-knock warrant is the possibility of evidence (drugs) being destroyed, or the imminent potential threat to an innocent. In Texas, the latter doesn't require a warrant, and the former seems insignficant, even foolish, when we consider the potential for serious injury to officers or the residents. While I'm on the subject, dynamic entry is used in circumstances outside of the two situations I just described. That makes no sense to me. It may be more convenient, or more high-speed to kick the door in, but certainly no more effective, and no safer than catching the subject out of doors.
 
I thought the only rationale for no-knock warrants was that a serious danger is posed to the officers by announcing. In the case of this situation it doesn't seem justified. Now if a warrant needs to be served on a gang member's house and it's known that there are multiple, heavily armed threats in the house then it makes sense. When ringing the doorbell and saying "hey it's the cops" would result in shots being fired through the door at the officers then it seems to makes sense to enter without announcing.

On the other hand I don't believe officer safety should be regarded are more important than civilian safety nor the rights of said civilians. No knock warrants should require a hell of a lot more of a threat than "persons or unknown persons" for a judge to sign. In fact I think the person most at fault in this situation is the judge that approved the warrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top