Md: The Cheye Calvo raid...

A " Known" and presumed 30 min. of that 24-72 hour timeline should have been spent(and probably was) finding out who resided at residence.
Click to expand...

A better question would have been "How much of that 30 minutes was spent researching the retail value of the property?"

With the police being turned into bounty hunters by seizure and forfeiture laws, and the seizures being written into their budgets, it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that a large part of the purpose of this raid, in that particular neighborhood, was not done in the interest of seizing that property under the forfeiture laws.
 
the general public's lack of understanding concerning the rules surrounding excecuting warrants
Click to expand...

OK, maybe you can help with the part I find troubling...

If I see some cops coming across my lawn and yell to my wife, "Honey! Why are there cops coming across the lawn?" does that mean that the warrant has been served at that point, since I'm aware of their presence, and they are free to come through the closed door by force? Or do they still have to knock and show me a warrant if they hear my call out to my wife?
 
um, why didn't the police just intercept the package and keep it, then knock on the mayors door and take him down to the station for questioning.

What they did is unacceptable under any circumstance unless someones life is directly in danger, IE hostage type situtation.
 
um, why didn't the police just intercept the package and keep it, then knock on the mayors door and take him down to the station for questioning.
Click to expand...

Because live fire exercises are far more fun. Questioning a suspect at the station just doesn't have that same adrenaline rush.
 
um, why didn't the police just intercept the package and keep it, then knock on the mayors door and take him down to the station for questioning.
Click to expand...

Because they have to justify the $$ so that they can keep their Swat Team and get more toys on the next budget.
 
JimPeel said:
By the by ... a she said, she said, she said discussion on this from FoxNews:
Click to expand...

It's interesting that a former prosecutor says she doesn't see the necessity to kick the door; that there were no exigent circumstances and that police clearly overstepped their authority.
 
It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see all cities do what the city of Dinuba, CA did when they disbanded their SWAT team. It seems that the only homicide in the city's history was the police shooting Ramon Gallardo.

By the by, the twelve shots which struck Gallardo were from a fifteen shot burst fired from an officer's subgun. Just the type of weapon you want to see in a close quarters encounter in a single family residence.

Ramon Gallardo.

July 11, 1997—CA

A SWAT team from Dinuba, California -- a town with just 12 regular police officers and 15,000 people, which hadn't a single reported homicide in its history -- shoots and kills sixty-four-year-old farm worker Ramon Gallardo.

Officers in black masks break down Gallardo's bedroom door while he and his wife are sleeping. Carmen Gallardo tells the Los Angeles Times she thought the police "were robbers" when they entered. Police say Gallardo reached for a folding knife to defend himself, at which point they shot him twelve times. Gallardo's family says he didn't own any such knife.

Police weren't serving a drug warrant, and Gallardo had no criminal history. Instead, they were looking for a stolen gun they say belonged to one of his sons. The gun was never found.

A subsequent investigation by the Tulare County District Attorney found nothing improper on the part of police, from obtaining the search warrant, to using a SWAT team to serve it, to the eventual shooting of Gallardo. A federal jury later ordered the town of Dinuba to pay the Gallardo family $5 million in compensation. Dinuba later dissolved its SWAT team.

Source:

Mark Arax, "Small farm town's SWAT team leaves costly legacy," Los Angeles Times, April 5, 1999, p. A1.
Click to expand...
 
"OK, maybe you can help with the part I find troubling..."

I'll give it a shot.

"If I see some cops coming across my lawn and yell to my wife, "Honey! Why are there cops coming across the lawn?" does that mean that the warrant has been served at that point, since I'm aware of their presence, and they are free to come through the closed door by force?"

No.

"Or do they still have to knock and show me a warrant if they hear my call out to my wife?"

Generally, yes. "Generally" implies there are exceptions, known as exigent circumstances.

First the law: (Theusual "I am not your lawyer" caveat applies.)

The "knock and announce" law, 18 U.S.C. § 3109:
"The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant."

Next some of the case law where the exceptions where created and/or upheld:

United States v. Turner:
"Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'"

United States v. Mendoza
"Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry."

"The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id."

United States v. McConney
A simultaneous, no-refusal entry is permissible if at least 'mild exigent circumstances' were present. "Mild exigency" is sufficient to justify simultaneous knock/announce and entry if entry does not require physical destruction of property.

"We define exigent circumstances as those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

United States v. Whitney:
"Only a mild indication of exigency is required to excuse noncompliance with the `refusal of admittance' requirement of section 3109.'"

So what's it all mean? Answer: In general 18 U.S.C. § 3109 applies as the law of the land. Unless: (1) a judge decides exigent circumstances exist or (2) officers on scene decide that exigent circumstances exist. The officers are held, mind you, to the reasonable person standard; a relatively low standard.

This breach, from what we know to date, whether it involved knock or not, will likely be ruled permissable within the scope of the law. The MIL yelled out, after all, something everyone admitts. Because given the context, when yelled aloud, "the cops are here" (specualtion as to what she yelled) can reasonably be interpreted as a call to arms or evidence destruction just as often as it may be interpreted as a question.

Know your rights. That includes when the police can and cannot enter your home or place of business and under what circumstances. From the looks of things across the internet, many do not.
 
"Um, why didn't the police just intercept the package and keep it, then knock on the mayors door and take him down to the station for questioning."

Because recepients of contraband via the mail or common carriers would never be successfully prosecuted that way. All they'd ever have to do is play the odds, and deny everything. "My drugs/child porn/whatever? Nope. Not mine."

"What they did is unacceptable under any circumstance unless someones life is directly in danger, IE hostage type situtation."

They served a low risk warrant. By definiton not what a hostage situation calls for.
 
The rumble through he community has to do with the dogs. We do love our dogs. Look for the matter of the dogs to outweigh the breach.
 
Erik, So its OK for police to knock down your house door and start shooting? Without any decent reason?

I don't care if its drugs/childporn/"whatever" - that act is unacceptable.
 
Reasonable man standard??

1. Exigent circumstances? The "knock and announce" aspect of the warrant was abandoned at the scene, because the mother in law saw the inbound raid team and screamed. The raid team proceeded to bust down the door without knocking/announcing (and kill the dogs).

"Potential hostage situation"/"exigent circumstances", has been offered to excuse the raid team, for exceeding the authority of the warrant granted by the judge. Yet, the team had the location staked out, and knew (or should have known) the relationship of the occupants. Mayor Calvo was going to hold his own mother in law hostage? Mayor Calvo was going to shoot police? 32 lb of marijuana evidence would be destroyed in the time it took to execute the warrant as written? A reasonable man could not answer yes to any of these questions. Very poor pre-raid investigation exhibited.

Incidentally, in the Ryan Frederick drug raid debacle, it was offered that "a change in the light" within the house; was all it took for the raid team to call "8ball", and proceed to smash the door with disastrous results of an officer killed. Equally specious claim of exigent circumstances; grasping at straws, IMO.

2. Interagency cooperation? One article mentioned an agreement among various LE agencies to notify respective depts. about operations within their jurisdictions, to avoid possible friendly fire incidents. This policy was violated in the Calvo raid.

"The local PD was corrupt, and advance notification would have tipped the criminals off", has been offered to excuse this violation of policies. Unless this reasoning can be supported with citations, a reasonable man would conclude that this justification is not credible, and likely pulled from someone's rectal area.

3. Raid team identifiable as police and in uniform? Not yet firmly established, some reports that the team wore plain clothes. If true, a most negligent action that increased risks for all concerned, by the reasonable man standard.

4. Warrant not presented to the occupants? Mayor Calvo himself requested a copy of the warrant at the scene, was denied repeatedly.

Reasonable man is starting to sense a pattern and practice of total disregard of safety, policy, and legality, exhibited by this department. :mad:

5. Dogs "engaged officers"? Witnesses report that dog was followed by officers to the rear of the house and killed as it was running away.

Reasonable man starting to get suspicious, over the totality of circumstances.

Reasonable man starts to ask himself what underlying motives would encourage such reckless behavior by law enforcement. :rolleyes:

Reasonable man watches for the FBI report to correct the situation, but is not holding his breath. :(

By the way, did anyone notice that Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High has resigned? What a coincidence! :rolleyes:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/08072008/prinnew154206_32457.shtml
 
Last edited:
1. "Exigent circumstances? The "knock and announce" aspect of the warrant was abandoned at the scene, because the mother in law saw the inbound raid team and screamed. The raid team proceeded to bust down the door without knocking/announcing (and kill the dogs)."

It is relatively common for the "knock and announce" aspect of warrants to be abandoned at the scene. (Compared to the issuance of "no-knocks.") The scene is the scene, after all, and must be handled accordingly.

Why? Officers can dispense with “knock and announce” when they have reasonable suspicion that exigent circumstances exist. Some facts that allow them to reasonably conclude that to knock and announce will be dangerous, futile, pointless, or inhibit their investigation by facilitating the destruction of evidence. There are more.

An argument that this instance meets the dangerous, futile, and pointless categories can be made. The benefit typically goes to the officers on scene at the time. The scene as interpreted through their eyes in very much the issue.

2. "Interagency cooperation?"

Irrelevant.

3. "Raid team identifiable as police and in uniform?"

Whether they were identifyable as police is an issue; a potentially important one as I've already noted. There is no requirement that they be "in uniform;" identifiable being identifiable, after all.

4. "Warrant not presented to the occupants?"

The time line concerning when the warrant was shown to whom is unclear.

It as much a matter of tactics as law. The warrant is executed, and once the officers have control all the people, premises, and surrounding area as necessary, then ideally the occupants are presented with a copy of the search warrant if possible. "If possible" alludes to the fact that warrants do not have to be presented even at that time; they do not. The warrant doesn't even have to be there. By the time the officers are done, and certainly prior to the removal of evidence, a copy of the warrant must be produced.

5. "Dogs "engaged officers"?"

As I noted, look for the treatment of the dogs to drive the story, for better or worse. Almost nothing is known about the behavior of the dogs as it related to the warrant service team, and importantly their positional relationship to warant team members in what appears to be a modestly sized residence.

Since most everyone else is speculating, I'll try it out: the breach will be upheld while the shooting of at least one of the dogs will not be. But there's really nothing to base that on, one way or the other. Whew... That was liberating. Now I understand why some indulge in it so much.

"By the way, did anyone notice that Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High has resigned? What a coincidence!"

The article you linked stipulates that Chief Melvin High, with 40 years in, began planning his retirement in June, and announced it on July 31. So yes, I'd say it fits the definition of coincidence nicely.
 
Last edited:
I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for why a couple of uniformed officers could not have knocked on the door and served the warrant.
 
The more I think about it, the more I believe they may have been hoping to catch whoever lived there with a small amount of marijuana unrelated to the box box of stuff they had dropped off earlier. Once they catch the homeowner guilty of something, they pile on possession of the large amount (even though it would not have stuck as a primary charge) and then drop the charges for everything after they seize his house, cars, etc.

If they didn't burst in, the homeowner might have had a chance to flush the couple of joints or whatever that he actually knew about, and the whole set-up falls apart.

Once they do go into "dynamic entry" mode, they sort of just run on auto-pilot, shooting dogs and stomping kittens and stuff.

BTW, I am against illegal drugs as much as anyone, but the "War on Drugs" is a much bigger problem than the one it is pretending to solve.
 
"I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for why a couple of uniformed officers could not have knocked on the door and served the warrant."

The media has not reported how many officers there were, how they were dressed, how many cars were parked curbside, whether the cars were market units, etc.

"Once they do go into "dynamic entry" mode, they sort of just run on auto-pilot, shooting dogs and stomping kittens and stuff."

If that tunrs out to be the case, there will be trouble, the type of trouoble involving money and careers. And deservedly so, at that point.
 
I have still not seen a reasonable explanation for why a couple of uniformed officers could not have knocked on the door and served the warrant.
Click to expand...
The media has not reported how many officers there were, how they were dressed, how many cars were parked curbside, whether the cars were market units, etc.
Click to expand...

More information...

The Baltimore Sun

Last Tuesday, the mayor arrived home from his full-time job as an executive with SEED Foundation, which establishes urban public charter schools. He took the unopened package inside and placed it on a table near the door. He changed clothes and walked the dogs, waving to the men and women sitting in cars near his home. He did not know they were police.

He returned and went upstairs to get dressed for an event. As he changed clothes, SWAT team members darted across the fenced-in lot. Porter, 50, was cooking artichokes in the kitchen and screamed when she saw the approaching masked men with guns.
Click to expand...

While we still do not know the shoe size of everyone involved, it is reasonably clear that a couple of uniformed officers did not walk up and knock on the front door, which just might have avoided this ugly incident.
 
Yes, it would be unusual for the surveillance team to be conspicously dressed as police officers.

Just as it would be unusual for "SWAT team members" to be dressed as other than SWAT team members. How do SWAT team memebrs dress, by the way? How did these SWAT team members dress? We don't know.

Masked men with guns. Yes, masked men and guns are often found among SWAT team members.

There was a PR shot floating around of one of the county's SWAT teams. They looked the part; the usual tac gear and police markings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top