Resisting the police

One possible way to reduce the errors (overall) is to make it so that while the city/county/state/etc., is responsible and pays (or their insurance pays) when found liable in court, the individual officers and their supervisors would have their wages garnished to pay back the city/insurance company, etc.
Click to expand...

In some branches of engineering, people can be held criminally negligent for engineering mistakes which result in injury or death. An engineer who signs a drawing is taking personal responsibility for the integrity of the design.

If a person has a security clearance, releasing information into the public can result in prison time, even if the release was accidental. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove intent, they must only show negligence.

If a US company has a contract to supply weapons or defense services to a foreign nation, these transactions are covered by ITAR regulations, which are very complicated and change yearly. Violations of ITAR are a felony, punishable by prison, and again it is not necessary to show intent.

If a person has knowledge about a company that would affect the price of its stock, knowledge that is not generally known to the public, that knowledge is considered "insider knowledge". If the "insider knowledge" is used by that person to trade stocks, or is exchanged with another for some quid pro quo arrangement, everyone involved could go to jail. Even people who had no idea that information would be used to trade in stocks are still criminally liable. Once again, it is not necessary to show intent.

All of these examples relate to negligence on the part of professionals... negligence that is punishable by jail time.


So why are we talking about garnishing wages, and suing the city? Maybe busting into the wrong house should be considered a matter of criminal negligence?

If Officers might be facing real jail time for errors in judgment, they might be more careful. Businessmen, engineers, airline pilots, surgeons, pharmicists, all can face criminal penalties for an "honest mistake" i.e. negligence... why not the police?
 
If Officers might be facing real jail time for errors in judgment, they might be more careful. Businessmen, engineers, airline pilots, surgeons, pharmicists, all can face criminal penalties for an "honest mistake" i.e. negligence... why not the police?

Outside of airline piots and surgeons, none of the above make split second decisions. I have never heard of any doctor, anywhere, being held criminally liable for a mistake. Airline pilots do have to make split second decisions every now and then, but I have never heard of one being held criminally liable either.
 
Airline pilots do have to make split second decisions every now and then, but I have never heard of one being held criminally liable either.
Click to expand...

Well, they don't often survive their mistakes.

The issues we're talking about aren't split second decisions. Making sure the address is correct on the warrant or they're at the right house isn't a decision made in the heat of the moment. If everything IS correct it's another matter, and more dealing with "Is this really the best use of the tactics involved?" and again, not so much a heat of the moment type decision... that goes to the folks back in the HQ.
 
Oh, I agree, there is no excuse for making that type of mistake. We have to physically describe the place we are going to search, example: 111 Dump Street is a multi-level brown wooden structure with a mailbox displaying "111" and
"111" displayed on the front door.

I am talking about the decisions that are made when you don't have the time to sit down and get everything right.
 
I am talking about the decisions that are made when you don't have the time to sit down and get everything right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I think those are probably not really the ones involved with worries regarding tactical teams making a no-knock dynamic raid on the home of a completely innocent person.

I can certainly understand the police thinking "He's pointing a gun at us... FIRE!" It's standard self defense. But if it gets to that point in the home of a completely innocent person, I'd consider the trigger-puller to not be at near as much fault as the folks who issued a search warrant, decided on this kind of raid, and set up shop outside the home (I'm assuming the folks in the door aren't the ones making these calls). If it happened to me, I'd be sitting in heaven without any mean words for the officer who punched my ticket, but I'd have a bone to pick with the person who pointed him through my front door.

What concerns me is that focusing on the homeowner's ability to defend himself may be missing the point; the focus should probably be placed more on ensuring raids of this level of danger are used only very rarely and in the most extreme cases, and when they are performed, everything is quadruple checked at every stage because of the stakes involved.
 
If it happened to me, I'd be sitting in heaven without any mean words for the officer who punched my ticket, but I'd have a bone to pick with the person who pointed him through my front door.
Click to expand...

^^^+1^^^

LE departments are set up differently. That being said, there is always a CO in charge of the breaching unit that reviews the warrant. The rest of the team are just obeying orders. They don't review the physical warrant. In some cases, there's no one on the actual breaching team that has done any prior investigative work at the suspected house. These breaching team memebers have never seen the house before. Prior investigation is done by a different LE department....



IMO, this just isn't a good practice. The night of the raid, there should always be a person present from the investigative team that's actually been to the suspect house accompanying the breaching team to insure that the targeted house is the intended house.
It doesn't always happen that way though.....

....sooo, you can't sue or hold the team member liable.
 
Last edited:
If more of the risk was somehow shifted from no-knock victim to the police serving the faulty warrant, they might actually double-check the address.
 
I see two basic problems here:

1) As regards split-second decisions: In the case of a no-knock raid, there are two groups that have to make split-second decisions: (a) the police; and (b) the occupants of the residence. If a bunch of darkly-clad men burst through my front door at 3 a.m., my first thought is probably not going to be, "Oh, that must be the police." This worries me. Being prepared for a home invasion by 1-3 hoodie-clad thugs is not the same as being prepared for a raid by 8-10 well-trained, body-armor-clad SWAT officers armed with ARs and flash-bangs. Further, if I raise a gun to defend my home, there's little chance that I'll survive the ensuing firefight. If it's thugs, and I guess wrong, I and my family could die. If it's the police, and I guess wrong, I and my family could die.4

2) Unlike engineers, pilots and doctors, who also make some split-decision, life-and-death decisions, the police are protected by qualified immunity. This is a well-established doctrine under federal civil rights law, and it's very effective. I've been using this doctrine for the better part of the last decade to defend officers. If, as in the last example, I do raise my gun to shoot the police, and they kill me, a court is likely to rule that they are immune from suit. There are a couple of different legal routes to qualified immunity. In very broad strokes, one of them is "if the officer's did not violate any bright-line constitutional or statutory rights of the plaintiff," and the other is "if the officers acted reasonably." (This is assuming that they acted under color of law, mind you.) I, on the other hand, enjoy no such immunity. If officers bust into my house and I do shoot and kill one (and assuming that I survive), I can be sued for wrongful death. Even if I acted reasonably, I will likely have to go to trial to defend myself. Compare this to officers, who will win on summary judgment, if they can prevail on qualified immunity.
 
...the police are protected by qualified immunity. This is a well-established doctrine under federal civil rights law, and it's very effective. I've been using this doctrine for the better part of the last decade to defend officers. If, as in the last example, I do raise my gun to shoot the police, and they kill me, a court is likely to rule that they are immune from suit. There are a couple of different legal routes to qualified immunity. In very broad strokes, one of them is "if the officer's did not violate any bright-line constitutional or statutory rights of the plaintiff," and the other is "if the officers acted reasonably." (This is assuming that they acted under color of law, mind you.) I, on the other hand, enjoy no such immunity. If officers bust into my house and I do shoot and kill one (and assuming that I survive), I can be sued for wrongful death. Even if I acted reasonably, I will likely have to go to trial to defend myself. Compare this to officers, who will win on summary judgment, if they can prevail on qualified immunity.
Click to expand...

This level of court/legal protection doesn't seem to match up very well with "no knock" entries and other similar tactics, at least not in my civilian mind. That level of protection should be reserved for more "normal" interactions between LEO's and private citizens, such as a traffic stop. In a situation in which an entry team using quasi-military tactics to "breach" a dwelling with the intent to sieze illegal items or capture wanted persons (not a "hostage rescue" situation), SOMEBODY on the law enforcement side should have some legal liability for negligence and mistakes that could be lethal to completely uninvolved occupants of the dwelling. In my opinion.
 
Something I've wondered about on occasion,,,

I read about the passage of these types of laws,,,
Some 2nd Amendment oriented and some not.

I then read about people moving from the state that passed the law,,,
In fact I'm one who moved from California in the 90's because of bad gun laws.

What I wonder is this,,,
Has anyone ever read about the passage of a restrictive firearm law,,,
And then said: "I agree with that philosophy of government, I'm moving to that state."

Just a random thought.

Aarond
 
orangello said:
Spats McGee said:
...the police are protected by qualified immunity. This is a well-established doctrine under federal civil rights law, and it's very effective. I've been using this doctrine for the better part of the last decade to defend officers. If, as in the last example, I do raise my gun to shoot the police, and they kill me, a court is likely to rule that they are immune from suit. There are a couple of different legal routes to qualified immunity. In very broad strokes, one of them is "if the officer's did not violate any bright-line constitutional or statutory rights of the plaintiff," and the other is "if the officers acted reasonably." (This is assuming that they acted under color of law, mind you.) I, on the other hand, enjoy no such immunity. If officers bust into my house and I do shoot and kill one (and assuming that I survive), I can be sued for wrongful death. Even if I acted reasonably, I will likely have to go to trial to defend myself. Compare this to officers, who will win on summary judgment, if they can prevail on qualified immunity.
Click to expand...
This level of court/legal protection doesn't seem to match up very well with "no knock" entries and other similar tactics, at least not in my civilian mind. That level of protection should be reserved for more "normal" interactions between LEO's and private citizens, such as a traffic stop. In a situation in which an entry team using quasi-military tactics to "breach" a dwelling with the intent to sieze illegal items or capture wanted persons (not a "hostage rescue" situation), SOMEBODY on the law enforcement side should have some legal liability for negligence and mistakes that could be lethal to completely uninvolved occupants of the dwelling. In my opinion.
Click to expand...
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, . . . . From the LEO's perspective, it is during the no-knock or other "high speed, low drag" scenarios that a LEO has even more need of qualified immunity. In the overwhelming majority of law enforcement contacts, there are few, if any, split second decisions that have to be made. Unfortunately, the LEO on the scene never knows if this particular encounter will be the one to require such a decision. OTOH, in the no-knock scenario, an officer may be called upon to decide right now whether to pull the trigger. If every officer knew that a small error in execution could result in his or her homelessness, we'd have no officers to execute any of the high-risk raids.

Just to outline the contours of QI a little more closely, there are a couple of concepts that I should lay out:
  1. QI is an individual defense. That is, it protects the officer and his or her personal assets. It is not available to a city or other employing agency, though that agency may have other immunity defenses.
  2. QI only protects the individual officer from actions sounding in negligence. It does not protect from actions which lie in the intentional torts (assault, battery, etc.) It "provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986).

To be fair, though, most of the comments in this thread center around the actions of the folks responsible for putting the warrant together, not the SWAT officers executing the no-knock. That process is not a split-second operation.
 
As was mentioned earlier, we are not talking about split second decissions. We are talking about defective / negligent planning, or negligent strategy.

If I am an engineer designing an natural gas well, and I accidently specify the wrong kind of concrete, or the wrong size bolts, my company can be sued... but if my mistake results in a violation of the clean water act, the clean air act, or the endangered species act, I can go to jail.

If I can be held to that kind of responsibility, why can't the Police be held to the same kind of responsibility? If the wrong house is breached, someone in the Police leadership screwed up. If someone dies as a result, I don't think that it is too far of a stretch to say the the negligence rises to the level of criminal negligence.
 
If I can be held to that kind of responsibility, why can't the Police be held to the same kind of responsibility? If the wrong house is breached, someone in the Police leadership screwed up. If someone dies as a result, I don't think that it is too far of a stretch to say the the negligence rises to the level of criminal negligence.
Click to expand...

It's good to be the king. (And it sucks to be you)

That really is it -- the police, courts, and legislatures are on the same team and they exempt themselves from any liability.
 
btmj said:
As was mentioned earlier, we are not talking about split second decissions. We are talking about defective / negligent planning, or negligent strategy. . . .
Click to expand...
True. That being the case, a potential plaintiff is probably looking at something even stronger than qualified immunity. If the affidavit in support of the warrant is reviewed and signed off on by the prosecuting attorney, who is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. The judge who signs the warrant is entitled to judicial immunity. Qualified immunity is just that, qualified. Judicial and prosecutorial immunities are absolute immunities, giving prosecutors and judges immunity for any actions they take in those respective roles.
 
When in the last 40 years did the police get to be the bad guys? Is everyone here an ex-hippie?
Click to expand...

Not at all sir. I have several close family members who are Police. Also a retired Federal judge in the family who was once a Prosecutor. I am very sympathetic to the issues facing cops, from rookie patrolman to the captains and chiefs.

Nonetheless, it is my belief that because Law Enforcement is granted a great deal of power (necessarily so), we the people have a right to expect a great deal of professionalism in the use of that power.

An excellent analogy is an Air Force pilot who drops a bomb on the wrong target. He will have is actions reviewed in great detail. If it is found that he was negligent, he can be imprisoned. Negligent in this case meaning that he made a mistake that a reasonable pilot in the same situation would not have made, as judged by other Air Force officers.
 
It is most unfortunate that those who have to make split-second decisions, including policemen on patrol, will have those decisions reviewed by boards that will take hours and hours deciding if the on-the-spot decision and action was correct.
 
BlueTrain, that is precisely one of the reasons that officers have qualified immunity. It's very easy to second-guess officers from the comfort of my chair.
 
When in the last 40 years did the police get to be the bad guys? Is everyone here an ex-hippie?
Click to expand...
...I am very sympathetic to the issues facing cops, from rookie patrolman to the captains and chiefs.

Nonetheless, it is my belief that because Law Enforcement is granted a great deal of power (necessarily so), we the people have a right to expect a great deal of professionalism in the use of that power.

An excellent analogy is an Air Force pilot who drops a bomb on the wrong target. He will have is actions reviewed in great detail. If it is found that he was negligent, he can be imprisoned. Negligent in this case meaning that he made a mistake that a reasonable pilot in the same situation would not have made, as judged by other Air Force officers.
Click to expand...

Well said btmj. Since when does questioning authority, esp when civil liberties are concerned make one a "hippie"? Requiring the extra step to make sure the door that is being kicked in is the right one is reasonable; and, holding the individual, or individuals, responsible accountable when they get it wrong is the right thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top