Red, I would think if the officers had good reason to believe a shootout was likely, charging into the residence would be foolhardy. They would be putting themselves at great risk unnecessarily. That's the reason for surrounding the place, using psyops, tear gas, negotiation, etc. Why bust in if it's just a bunch of criminals holed up and unable to escape? The possibility of anyone losing their life in that situation seems to outwiegh any gratification gained by a quicker resolution. It seems most departments agree, which is why they use the above tactics.
Home invasions by police. Smart idea?
- Thread starter BerettaCougar
- Start date
Gary Conner
New member
Dear TX. RGR.:
On your comment:
" 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."
I agree on the imminent threat to an innocent individual being a good reason for a no-knock entry, but respectfully in my opinion, it is the ONLY reason for a no-knock entry, and ask you to consider the following regarding no knocks and drugs.
If drugs are being destroyed, I don't feel it is justified to do the no-knock, because of these two issues: (1) If the purpose is "getting drugs off the street" in this war on drugs (that has been going on for over fifty years at least) then flushing them down the toilet results in that very goal, and
(2) If it is the wrong address (as in the Houston death) a totally innocent American citizen can be shot to death in his own home while trying to defend himself and his family against unknown people crashing in his door, who it turned out, were there with the intent of making sure he didn't flush drugs.
Please understand I am not Anti-LEO. (I am a Ranger historian in fact, and have a great amount of respect for the Ranger organization and have personally devoted hundreds of hours to the historical study of the Ranger service.)
But I am Pro-Bill of Rights vs. the Later Lawyer Crowd as well, and I cannot imagine how "secure within our houses" could square with a "no knock entry" to serve a warrant. You may have a view that would change my thinking, (as I would obviously give great consideration to the reasonings of a man who has reached the very high level of training necessary to be a Texas Ranger today)
But I just can't seem to understand how a no-knock entry, is squared with constitutionally serving a warrant.
On your comment:
" 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."
I agree on the imminent threat to an innocent individual being a good reason for a no-knock entry, but respectfully in my opinion, it is the ONLY reason for a no-knock entry, and ask you to consider the following regarding no knocks and drugs.
If drugs are being destroyed, I don't feel it is justified to do the no-knock, because of these two issues: (1) If the purpose is "getting drugs off the street" in this war on drugs (that has been going on for over fifty years at least) then flushing them down the toilet results in that very goal, and
(2) If it is the wrong address (as in the Houston death) a totally innocent American citizen can be shot to death in his own home while trying to defend himself and his family against unknown people crashing in his door, who it turned out, were there with the intent of making sure he didn't flush drugs.
Please understand I am not Anti-LEO. (I am a Ranger historian in fact, and have a great amount of respect for the Ranger organization and have personally devoted hundreds of hours to the historical study of the Ranger service.)
But I am Pro-Bill of Rights vs. the Later Lawyer Crowd as well, and I cannot imagine how "secure within our houses" could square with a "no knock entry" to serve a warrant. You may have a view that would change my thinking, (as I would obviously give great consideration to the reasonings of a man who has reached the very high level of training necessary to be a Texas Ranger today)
But I just can't seem to understand how a no-knock entry, is squared with constitutionally serving a warrant.
Gary--
No offense taken. I listed the possible loss of evidence (drugs) as a rationale for the decision to initiate a forced entry into a residence. In other words, this is the line of reasoning, justification, reason, excuse that is offered in many cases. But I also attempted to explain that such methods are not worth the risk to those involved. We are actually in agreement here.
Regards,
TX
No offense taken. I listed the possible loss of evidence (drugs) as a rationale for the decision to initiate a forced entry into a residence. In other words, this is the line of reasoning, justification, reason, excuse that is offered in many cases. But I also attempted to explain that such methods are not worth the risk to those involved. We are actually in agreement here.
Regards,
TX
Gary Conner
New member
Dear TX RGR:
I am glad to know that. I appreciate your views on that issue, as that issue is one that is very important to me personally. I am delighted that an LEO who has reached your status agrees on that issue.
Today there are very many police officers whose thinking is the exact opposite on this.
Gary
I am glad to know that. I appreciate your views on that issue, as that issue is one that is very important to me personally. I am delighted that an LEO who has reached your status agrees on that issue.
Today there are very many police officers whose thinking is the exact opposite on this.
Gary
BerettaCougar
New member
First off, the instance of No-Knock and Dynamic Entry warrants are quite rare. There must be extreme exigent circumstances for a judge to issue one, such as the probable loss of evidence, or dangerous suspects. Theys simply dont happen that often. They do get a lot mote attention, but they arent common.
He was tried and convicted by a jury. Period. Hes guilty in the eyes of the law. It is irrelvant whether he is white, black or green. He got a trial, and he lost. Hes on death row because hes guilty.
"No Knock" is simply a curent buzzword. It will cease to be an issue when something else the anarchists/Libertarians find that offends them more.
He was tried and convicted by a jury. Period. Hes guilty in the eyes of the law. It is irrelvant whether he is white, black or green. He got a trial, and he lost. Hes on death row because hes guilty.
"No Knock" is simply a curent buzzword. It will cease to be an issue when something else the anarchists/Libertarians find that offends them more.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
For those that think this issue is cut and dried, one way or the other, here's a little something that happened here last week.
The 911 center reported a hang-up phone call from a certain residence. (Note that we are required to respond to all 911 hang-up calls). A check shows that the resident is a female, and there is a history of domestics and assaults there. Officers arrive, and knock and announce. No one responds. Attempts to call the number back yield no response as well. Officers try the door and find it unlocked. They push it open and announce again, but don't enter, and see a male upstairs run into another room. He neither looked at officers nor responded in any way.
You are one of those officers. Your response?
The 911 center reported a hang-up phone call from a certain residence. (Note that we are required to respond to all 911 hang-up calls). A check shows that the resident is a female, and there is a history of domestics and assaults there. Officers arrive, and knock and announce. No one responds. Attempts to call the number back yield no response as well. Officers try the door and find it unlocked. They push it open and announce again, but don't enter, and see a male upstairs run into another room. He neither looked at officers nor responded in any way.
You are one of those officers. Your response?
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
I assume you mean enter the residence?... without invitation, without a warrant?
BerettaCougar
New member
Capt, the police opened the door, without a warant and without seeing something happen....
No PC, No go ahead from a juge.
No PC, No go ahead from a juge.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
So you're saying everything's as it should be, and they should call it a day?
BerettaCougar
New member
No, that's a hard one there Capt
I really dont know what I would do.
I really dont know what I would do.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
But you're in my shoes BC; you're in the hot seat. Officers are awaiting your orders. You have to call the shot, one way or the other
.BerettaCougar
New member
I would surround the structure.
make sure escape is impossible.
Get a loudspeaker or something to really make our presence known.
And leave no doubt that we are there, and that we arent there for confrontation, just investigating a 911 hang up.
Then if no response after an hour or so, I would allow a team to enter.
make sure escape is impossible.
Get a loudspeaker or something to really make our presence known.
And leave no doubt that we are there, and that we arent there for confrontation, just investigating a 911 hang up.
Then if no response after an hour or so, I would allow a team to enter.
I beleive that there is a place for dynamic entries in law enforcment. Especially in situations where drug houses have been reinforced and there are known people who have committed armed assault and that they are armed inside. A situation where a knock warrant could result in shooting and deaths of officers and perps. The ultimate goal should be to effect an arrest without injury or death if possible. A dynami entry is suited for this scenario.
CPT Charlie..... hrmmm
I know that you have told me that there is a 9/11 hang up call, a past history of domestic/assault problems problems. I see a white male run up stairs and into another room without acknowledging the officers. If the door is open I am probably going to yell "Police, anybody home!" without exposing myself too much. I know there is a person in the home because I saw him. Give the person a chance to respond in a reasonable amount of time. I am assuming that a reasonable person with nothing to hide would answer my call.
I would enter the residence in a safe manner to look to see if everybody was okay. Yes I have entered without out a warrant. My primary concern would be to make sure that nobody inside was in need of medical care or hurt, my primary concern would be to protect a person from harm. We would have to cross the bridge on arrest or seizure when we come to it.
CPT Charlie..... hrmmm
I know that you have told me that there is a 9/11 hang up call, a past history of domestic/assault problems problems. I see a white male run up stairs and into another room without acknowledging the officers. If the door is open I am probably going to yell "Police, anybody home!" without exposing myself too much. I know there is a person in the home because I saw him. Give the person a chance to respond in a reasonable amount of time. I am assuming that a reasonable person with nothing to hide would answer my call.
I would enter the residence in a safe manner to look to see if everybody was okay. Yes I have entered without out a warrant. My primary concern would be to make sure that nobody inside was in need of medical care or hurt, my primary concern would be to protect a person from harm. We would have to cross the bridge on arrest or seizure when we come to it.
invention_45
New member
Are you guys trying to tell me that getting a hangup 911 call from a known DV residence, being unable to raise anyone on that phone line, then opening an unlocked door and seeing somebody inside, despite the phone not being answered, isn't PC while "joe sold me pot" said by an arrestee trying to reduce his charges *is* PC?
This is one upside-down world.
This is one upside-down world.
BerettaCougar
New member
Why would the cops try to enter the home?
(If the door is closed)
Now if it's open, and they saw someone run...thats another story.
(If the door is closed)
Now if it's open, and they saw someone run...thats another story.
invention_45
New member
Why would they want to enter the home?
Hangup 911 call from known DV residence. Coincidence? Maybe. Might be a big fight going on and violence in progress. If it's a KNOWN DV residence, that means the police have been there before. The hangup call then becomes significant because...it could easily be a perp forcibly aborting the call, not wanting another visit. I'm a reasonable person, and I would be suspicious at this point. So, IMHO, we're already at reasonable suspicion here, with the SAF just stated.
Can't reach anybody on that number immediately after. That's even MORE suspicious. Again, IMHO, it rises from possible to more likely than not, which is the definition of probable, and we have PC to open the door.
If I were the abused half of this pair and the police opened the door, I think I'd be pretty grateful, even if it was a mistake. Then if it upset me I'd lock my door in the future. There's a victim involved, so I don't much care what the already-known-criminal half would think.
Hangup 911 call from known DV residence. Coincidence? Maybe. Might be a big fight going on and violence in progress. If it's a KNOWN DV residence, that means the police have been there before. The hangup call then becomes significant because...it could easily be a perp forcibly aborting the call, not wanting another visit. I'm a reasonable person, and I would be suspicious at this point. So, IMHO, we're already at reasonable suspicion here, with the SAF just stated.
Can't reach anybody on that number immediately after. That's even MORE suspicious. Again, IMHO, it rises from possible to more likely than not, which is the definition of probable, and we have PC to open the door.
If I were the abused half of this pair and the police opened the door, I think I'd be pretty grateful, even if it was a mistake. Then if it upset me I'd lock my door in the future. There's a victim involved, so I don't much care what the already-known-criminal half would think.
Do not confuse a conviction with guilt nor an aquittal with innocence. Innocent men have been convicted many times in the past.
Yeah, we should all just trust in the thin blue line. Police officers are perfect specimens that never make mistakes and can never, ever be corrupted. It should simply be assumed that no-knock warrants are always justified.
lol america
XavierBreath
New member
Captn,
With all due respect, a 911 hangup is not the same as suspecting a home to be harboring a fugitive or drugs.
The 911 hangup is potentially a crime in progress.
The harbored fugitive is simply someone who might commit or has committed a crime. The drugs are simply a storehouse of a controlled substance.
These are not the same.
Given the scenerio, however, what you might want to do is block off exits and call for back-up. Meanwhile, try to figure out what is going on.
How do you know the tenants of this apartment have not changed? The lady who reported those domestic disputes could now be living in another state. How do you know the man you saw run is not the retarded son of the new homeowner who is simply spooked anytime the doorbell rings? How do you know this is not a lure to kill a couple of cops as a gang initiation?
You don't. Before you rush in putting guns to people's heads, you need to figure out what the situation is.
I admire the decisions officers have to make under this kind of stress, and I find it hard to fault them. I just hate to see people pronounced dead when an ounce of caution would have saved lives. The officer's and the running man's lives are important as well.
With all due respect, a 911 hangup is not the same as suspecting a home to be harboring a fugitive or drugs.
The 911 hangup is potentially a crime in progress.
The harbored fugitive is simply someone who might commit or has committed a crime. The drugs are simply a storehouse of a controlled substance.
These are not the same.
Given the scenerio, however, what you might want to do is block off exits and call for back-up. Meanwhile, try to figure out what is going on.
How do you know the tenants of this apartment have not changed? The lady who reported those domestic disputes could now be living in another state. How do you know the man you saw run is not the retarded son of the new homeowner who is simply spooked anytime the doorbell rings? How do you know this is not a lure to kill a couple of cops as a gang initiation?
You don't. Before you rush in putting guns to people's heads, you need to figure out what the situation is.
I admire the decisions officers have to make under this kind of stress, and I find it hard to fault them. I just hate to see people pronounced dead when an ounce of caution would have saved lives. The officer's and the running man's lives are important as well.