Why Police Raids should be illegal

▲
6
0
▼

Why Police Raids should be illegal

2014 Dec 10, 3:28pm 40,948 views 128 comments

Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year. Civilians often pay the price when they go wrong.

Most of the time, when a person kills an intruder who breaks into his home, dressed in all black and screaming, the homeowner will avoid jail time. But what happens when the break-in was a no-knock SWAT raid, the intruder was a police officer, and the homeowner has a record?

Turns out that it depends entirely on the prejudices of the jury.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable search," meaning police can't bust into your home whenever they feel like it â€” they need a warrant, granted by a judge. Even a search warrant doesn't give police the right to enter your home by force â€” they're supposed to knock, announce themselves, and give you a chance to open the door.

But as the war on drugs ramped up in the 1970s and 1980s, police argued that criminals and drug dealers were too dangerous to be granted the typical courtesy of knocking first. In the early 1970s, the federal government made it legal for federal law enforcement agents to conduct no-knock raids â€” but the law was so widely abused that it was repealed a few years later.

Since then, though, a series of court decisions and state laws have carved out a set of circumstances that make it legal for police to raid a house without announcing their presence beforehand. This has happened at the same time that SWAT teams have proliferated around the country.

Most SWAT teams spend their time carrying out home raids. The ACLU analyzed 818 records of SWAT exercises from police departments around the country in 2011 and 2012. They found that 80 percent of the time, SWAT teams were deployed to execute a search warrant â€” instead of crises such as hostage situations or active shooters.

thanks to civil asset forfeiture, raiding a home lets cops seize whatever drug money (or other illegal money) is being stored there â€” and perhaps even the home itself â€” and use it for their own departments.

It's rare that judges deny warrants for no-knock raids.

Back in 2000, the Denver Post analyzed a year's worth of no-knock warrants and found that judges rejected five out of 163 requests. The Post also found that, 10 percent of the time, a judge would approve a no-knock raid even when police had simply asked for a standard warrant.

In other cases, police have said they need to conduct a no-knock SWAT raid when homeowners have legally registered guns â€” to the outrage of conservatives and libertarians.

So much for gun rights. Own a gun, the police shoot you on site.

There isn't great data, but the ACLU's analysis showed that about 35 percent of SWAT drug raids turned up contraband, while 36 percent of them turned up nothing. (And 29 percent of SWAT reports didn't mention whether they found anything â€” a fact police are more likely to omit when they didn't find anything than when they did.) In forced-entry SWAT raids, the "success" rate of actually finding drugs dropped to about a 25 percent.

In 2003, the commissioner of the NYPD estimated that, of the more than 450 no-knock raids the city conducted every month, 10 percent were wrong-door raids. That estimate came after a wrong-door raid resulted in the homeowner's death: when police broke into the home of 57-year-old Alberta Spruill and threw in a flash-bang grenade, the shock gave her a fatal heart attack.

In some of these cases, the target of the raid might reasonably claim self-defense; the law allows a homeowner to defend himself against someone he thinks is an intruder. But unlike when a cop shoots a civilian in a raid, a homeowner doesn't have a police chief on hand to tell a jury that the shooting was justified. So, as Guy's case demonstrates, even though civilians are more likely to get killed in SWAT raids than cops, civilians are the ones more likely to get brought into court for murder.

9 Horrifying Botched Police Raids

Police are often amped up for a SWAT-style raid, and suspects or innocent people behind the wrong door often believe that they are being attacked.

Sometimes they fire a weapon at cops thinking they are being burglarized. Sometimes the cops fire at them because they see something in their hands. Sometimes the police just make elementary mistakes.

What follows is a baleful litany of botched raids that include chainsawing through the door of the wrong address, executing friendly family dogs in front of weeping children and slamming grandmothers into the wall.

Mother watches her door get chainsawed and then gets held at gunpoint in front of her crying daughter. Oops! Wrong Address.

Police break a guy's arm and laugh at him. Turns out he isn't a drug dealer.

Police looking for a stolen X-Box slam a grandmother into the wall and execute two dogs in front of the kids. No stolen goods.

Cops knock. Teenagers open and offer to tie up dog. Police refuse and then shoot it. Arrest one teen. No drugs. No conviction.

Cops in Broward County get a bad address then end up in a guns-drawn standoff with the local judge.

Framingham SWAT Officer shoots and kills an unarmed grandfather while he was laying face down on the floor.

Computer glitch leads NY cops to conduct successive raids on elderly couple's home for 8 years

Minneapolis police burn the flesh off an innocent woman's leg with a flash-bang grenade

SWAT Team puts 22 bullets into a former Marine, while his wife and child cower in a closet. Nothing illegal found.

Even murdering veterans who committed no wrong isn't below the police.

At this point, anyone who says it's just a few bad apples is delusional.

« First « Previous Comments 89 - 128 of 128 Search these comments

Peter P 2014 Dec 17, 4:50am

Marriage ought to be allowed between/among 2 or more persons of the same kind (natural or corporate).

Dan8267 2014 Dec 17, 4:56am

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Bullshit. The persecution of gays is and has always been religious.

FortWayne says

and don't talk to me about founding principles in this country, because they'd probably stone you back in 1776 if you were openly gay right here in America.

Unless you are black, in which case they would enslave you. Our founding fathers weren't noble and America wasn't great when it was created.

Do we really want to live like they did in 1776? Do you want to take away the right to vote from women and blacks? Do you want to re-institute slavery?

We should be better than the founding fathers. We have 240 years of history to learn from.

Of course the founding fathers were hypocrites. They wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" and yet practice slavery. Well, that "are created equal" applies to gays as well. And they should be equal under law. To say otherwise is Unamerican.

Strategist 2014 Dec 17, 6:09am

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

92 CDon 2014 Dec 17, 7:24am

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

No, that is plain ignorance and arrogance.

Feel free to back up that assertion with actual evidence.

Granted, the subject matter is different, but I would point to the following as Exhibit A:
Dan8267 says

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

HydroCabron 2014 Dec 17, 7:56am

The finger of blame points straight at the Fed.

By artificially bloating liquidity, they have spurred police to all manner of horrific behavior.

Dan8267 2014 Dec 17, 7:59am

CDon says

Granted, the subject matter is different, but I would point to the following as Exhibit A:

Dan8267 says

1. Our courts violate the First Amendment by prohibiting people from telling prospective jurors about jury nullification.

Are you saying that the courts don't violate the First Amendment when they prohibit citizens from informing other citizens about jury nullification. Please explain...

[Getting ready to pounce...]

FortWayne 2014 Dec 17, 8:01am

Strategist says

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

I don't think they should marry. Marriage is for children only, if you aren't raising future taxpayers you don't get the tax cut.

It's just liberals, who are completely losers, are constantly craving attention and acceptance of their wicked ways, so they naturally want to feel like society allows them to do everything same. But they are not same, if you are homosexual you are not same and should not be treated same. I'm not asking for persecution, all I'm saying is that marriage isn't for gays.

96 CDon 2014 Dec 17, 8:08am

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that the courts don't violate the First Amendment when they prohibit citizens from informing other citizens about jury nullification. Please explain...

See post 35. I take it you did not read Heicklen 10 CR 1154 (SDNY 2012)?

Keeping in mind the time/place/manner restrictions which have long set the boundaries of our 1st amendment, what in the holding of this case did you disagree with?

Dan8267 2014 Dec 17, 8:27am

Either shit or get off the pot. Make your argument or don't. I'm not going to infer your arguments for you.

98 CDon 2014 Dec 17, 8:49am

Dan8267 says

Either shit or get off the pot. Make your argument or don't. I'm not going to infer your arguments for you.

OK, its been a long time since I was a 1L, but here is the holding:

By standing outside the entrance to a Federal Courthouse and handing out pamphlets about jury nullification, Mr. Heicklen did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1504 as originally charged. Mr. Heicklen is well within his first amendment rights in so far as he chooses to stand outside the courthouse telling any and all incoming prospective jurors about jury nullification. 10 CR 1154 (SDNY 2012)

MisdemeanorRebel 2014 Dec 17, 10:01am

If I'm not mistaken, people have been found in contempt when, as jurors, they tell other jurors about jury nullification, but that it's the first amendment to discuss it outside the duties of a juror.

100

Strategist 2014 Dec 17, 11:02am

FortWayne says

Strategist says

FortWayne says

There is no religious persecution here. Gays have pretty good life

Not if you had your way. You hate them too much.

I don't think they should marry. Marriage is for children only, if you aren't raising future taxpayers you don't get the tax cut.

It's just liberals, who are completely losers, are constantly craving attention and acceptance of their wicked ways, so they naturally want to feel like society allows them to do everything same. But they are not same, if you are homosexual you are not same and should not be treated same. I'm not asking for persecution, all I'm saying is that marriage isn't for gays.

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law. The world is changing my friend, and you are getting left behind. Here is what the future of the world is......You can do anything you want, except hurt someone. Religions are in the forefront of denying rights and freedoms, which is why more and more people, believe less and less.
You have your set of morals, others have theirs. Morals are not God given, but given by societies of the time. Are you gonna stone someone for sex out of wedlock, or burn a witch at the stake, or have slaves because the Bible says it's OK? The Bible has some good stuff in it, and some bad stuff, but it has lots and lots of silly stuff like the age of the earth.
Give it up, you are fighting a losing battle.

101

Dan8267 2014 Dec 17, 1:02pm

CDon says

By standing outside the entrance to a Federal Courthouse and handing out pamphlets about jury nullification, Mr. Heicklen did not violate 18 U.S.C. 1504 as originally charged.

So, if I understand your argument, you are claiming that courts have not violated First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech about jury nullification because there was only one case of a person being arrested for it and he was acquitted by the judge.

If that is your argument, then it is incorrect. Heicklen was hardly the only person prosecuted for informing the public of jury nullification. Ed Forchion was also prosecuted for the exact same thing as Heicklen and the judge did not dismiss the case. Forchion only avoided a length jail sentence because the jury in his trial -- and he was smart enough to insist on a jury trial -- practiced jury nullification. Now that's ironic.

A jury of 12 decided that the law he had broken was illegitimate, and they ruled not guilty.

Nonetheless, the Forchion case is a clear indication of the state violating the First Amendment rights of a citizen. And it's hardly the worse example.

Mark Schimdter was sent to jail without trial for doing the same damn thing that Forchion and Heicklen did.

Vietnam Era Veteran, peaceful freedom activist, and local small businessman, Mark Schimdter, has been jailed for 145 days by Judge Belvin Perry. Schmidter's sentence began Thursday after he was found guilty for distributing jury nullification info outside of Perry's self-imposed "free speech zone." during the Casey Anthony trial.

102

Strategist 2014 Dec 17, 1:05pm

sbh says

Well, whadayaknow, you spun the wheel and it landed on "Don't be a dickhead".

That's because I missed. I'm spinning again.

103

Strategist 2014 Dec 17, 1:18pm

sbh says

Strategist says

sbh says

Well, whadayaknow, you spun the wheel and it landed on "Don't be a dickhead".

That's because I missed. I'm spinning again.

Clearly it was an unfortunate accident. If only the Bible were more supportive of torture you could save yourself the trouble.

It is. It is. "Burn in hell till eternity"

104

Peter P 2014 Dec 17, 2:02pm

Strategist says

Morals are not God given, but given by societies of the time.

Rather, morality is dictated by strength. Think of it as a story. Whoever has the strongest voice dominate the story.

105

indigenous 2014 Dec 17, 2:41pm

Hate to admit it but Dan finally got something right.

106 CDon 2014 Dec 18, 4:44am

Dan8267 says

. Ed Forchion was also prosecuted for the exact same thing as Heicklen

I don't think so. According to your source the daily "sheeple", Ed "weedman" Forchion was busted for pot and at his trial, he tried to present evidence as to jury nullification which was disallowed. The issue here is a procedural one, which I noted in post 43 revolves around the principle "Nullum crimen, nulla poena, sine lege." Frankly, I don't think you are ready to tackle that yet, so lets table this issue for the time being. As to the second issue:

Dan8267 says

Mark Schimdter was sent to jail without trial for doing the same damn thing that Forchion and Heicklen did.

This is completely wrong. During the Casey Anthony trial, Mr. Schmidter decided to descend upon the courthouse along with half of humanity who wanted screech their views on "tot mom". In response, Judge Perry issued an order restricting people from the boundary of the courthouse complex, meaning Mr. Schmidter, Nancy Grace, and all of humanity was relegated to the sidewalk (or designated free speech zones on campus) until such time as the trial was over. After receiving notice, warning arrest, Mr. Schmidter continued to distribute leaflets in clear violation of the order so he was arrested for contempt and jailed for 145 days.

On appeal, Schmidter argued Judge Perry's order violated his First Amendment rights because it "constitutes an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech in a traditional public forum".

HOLDING:
Contrary to Appellant's (Schmidter's) argument, this order does not apply to speech in a traditional public forum. This is because courthouses and courthouse grounds (with the exclusion of perimeter public sidewalks) have uniformly been treated as nonpublic forums for purposes of First Amendment analysis. See U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 SCHMIDTER V. STATE 103 So. 3d 263

Also Held:
There can be no question that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from the pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create. Since we are committed to a government of laws and not of men, it is of the utmost importance that the administration of justice be absolutely fair and orderly. This Court has recognized that the unhindered and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy â€¤ [and that a] State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice" Id.

Again, the fundamental question here (as was with Heicklen) relates to the time/place/manner restrictions on free speech that have been part of the constitution since its founding. Here the Florida court applied these principles and correctly found Schmidter guilty. This would not be causing you angst had you the slightest understanding of the underlying issue Dan. He was not jailed because of the content of what he said, but when and where he said it.

Fact of the matter is, the 1st amendment right to free speech has never been interpreted to say whatever you want, WHENEVER you want. There is a guy here in DC with a placard who regularly cries the govt violated his first amendment rights. His complaint: the govt would not let him walk into the State of the Union and speak his views about the incarceration of his adult son. Do you think this is a reasonable restriction on his speech?

Thus as I said in post 110 above: Keeping in mind the time/place/manner restrictions which have long set the boundaries of our 1st amendment, what in the holding of this case (Heicklen, and now Schmidter) do you disagree with? Say someone is invited to a Rose Garden ceremony for WWII Vets at the White House - if that person decides to then "exercise their free speech rights" by denouncing abortion, breakdancing, advocating jury nullification, or bursting into song about hairstyles of the 1970s is it surprising to anyone that this person will be arrested?

Also, since this is a discussion on what the law IS, please respond with something a little more tangible than the "daily sheeple" to support your views.

107

Peter P 2014 Dec 18, 5:31am

I have no sympathy for activists. These people have no clue how the world operates.

108

FortWayne 2014 Dec 18, 7:35am

Strategist says

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law.

Yes a poor single mother of 2 struggling to pay rent should not be treated same way Donald Trump is. Everyone is different, and every situation is different. Treating everyone same under the law is the biggest form of unreasonable inequality.

Just because one loves horses does not mean they are being prosecuted against when state won't let them marry a pony, I don't care they a horse whisperer. Gays can't marry for a very good reason as well.

109

FortWayne 2014 Dec 18, 7:45am

Strategist says

You are saying everyone should not be equal under the law. The world is changing my friend, and you are getting left behind. Here is what the future of the world is......You can do anything you want, except hurt someone. Religions are in the forefront of denying rights and freedoms, which is why more and more people, believe less and less.

I might be being left behind, but human nature doesnt' change. If new generation does things wrong and repeats mistakes they are warned about, we'll fall apart like the old Rome did.

It's not a new world, there is nothing new under the sun. It's just new generation is repeating the mistakes of the past, that ironically bible warns against, it being one of the oldest pieces of wise advice. There is quite a lot of advice in it, and every time we deviate from good advice we fail as a society.

Bible warns against excessive interest and usuary, when we forget it we get economic crashes. It warns us against excesses and selfish existance, when we forget society falls apart.

I'm telling you, what you are saying will not work. It's been done and tried many times before, and it has failed every time.

110

FortWayne 2014 Dec 18, 7:50am

sbh says

Ronnie, you are fucked up beyond measure.

No sbh, I'm just the voice of sanity.

111

Dan8267 2014 Dec 18, 8:45pm

FortWayne says

Bible warns against excessive interest and usuary

It also warns against menstruating women.

Still, you do realize that your Republican brethren will never let the financial industry be reformed. There's too much money to make by violating moral and ethical restraints.

You want a financial industry that Jesus -- you know, the guy who kicked the bankers on their asses -- would approve of, campaign for Elizabeth Warren.

112

indigenous 2014 Dec 19, 12:16am

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren

There is a false prophet.

113

FortWayne 2014 Dec 19, 4:09am

Dan8267 says

Still, you do realize that your Republican brethren will never let the financial industry be reformed. There's too much money to make by violating moral and ethical restraints.

I'm not a Republican.

114

Dan8267 2014 Dec 19, 4:11am

FortWayne says

I'm not a Republican.

But you vote for them in the general election, don't you?

115

Dan8267 2014 Dec 19, 4:12am

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Elizabeth Warren

There is a false prophet.

There is a false attack.

116

indigenous 2014 Dec 19, 5:34am

Dan8267 says

There is a false attack.

Bullshit

117

Peter P 2014 Dec 19, 5:37am

This is a false statement.

118

FortWayne 2014 Dec 19, 5:56am

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

I'm not a Republican.

But you vote for them in the general election, don't you?

119 mell 2014 Dec 19, 6:02am

The argument can be made that gay marriage is not a civil right, marriage is simply a government tool of "positive discrimination", which it practices all the time. The only fair solution is to abolish government regulated marriage entirely and let everybody form their civil unions under their own contracts. I don't have any issues with courts striking down gay-marriage bans, but then they have to be consistent and strike down any affirmative action law as well, tax deductions for kids, and the current marriage laws themselves. Everything else is just hypocrisy.

120

FortWayne 2014 Dec 19, 6:38am

mell says

The only fair solution is to abolish government regulated marriage entirely and let everybody form their civil unions under their own contracts

Gay people can have "civil unions", but that's not what they are asking for. They are asking for "Marriage" and that's a whole different contract. You can't be an LLP if you are an LLC by your own self... but that's what they want.

121

Peter P 2014 Dec 19, 6:40am

FortWayne says