Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/07/2006 12:28:35 PM PDT by JTN
Sometime this spring, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in the case of Hudson v. Michigan. At issue is whether or not police who used an illegal "no-knock" raid to enter a defendant's home can use the drugs they seized inside against the defendant at trial. To understand the importance of this case, some background is in order.
As the name indicates, a "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter a private residence without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. The tactic is appropriate in a few limited situations, such as when hostages or fugitives are involved, or where the suspect poses an immediate threat to community safety. But increasingly, this highly confrontational tactic is being used in less volatile situations, most commonly to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
These raids are often launched on tips from notoriously unreliable confidential informants. Rubber-stamp judges, dicey informants, and aggressive policing have thus given rise to the countless examples of "wrong door" raids we read about in the news. In fact, there's a disturbingly long list of completely innocent people who've been killed in "wrong door" raids, including New York City worker Alberta Spruill, Boston minister Accelyne Williams, and a Mexican immigrant in Denver named Ismael Mena.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Ping
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Some tragic stories there but in IMHO it would mean more if it wasn't on salon.
I agree though that SWAT is a militarization of civilian police and the siezure laws are a violation of the Consitution.
SWAT is used more than it should because the police forces have to use them in order to maintain funding.
Anyone wanna bet that the SC sides with the LEO's on this?
Well, actually, it is the SCOTUS and I hope they do the right thing.
"it is the SCOTUS and I hope they do the right thing."
I was referring to the link.
It's Slate.
I thought he was referring to the article. At any rate:
A. The blog isn't run by Salon; they just provide the space for a fee.
B. Nearly all of those stories are backed up by links to news articles about the events.
Thank you for posting that. I wasn't clear regarding which link I was referring to.
Some of the stories are tragic, and swat teams are over used, Our police forces have become militarized. The drug "war" is an incredible travesty. I don't have the answer to the drug problem but what we are doing isnt working.
The general twist that the salon link has is that police should knock nicely and the perps will give up their drugs. That doesn't happen and probably never will. IMO Salon is a liberal rag but then I am biased.
Stupidest post that I ever read here.
LEO's are regular people, fathers, mothers, etc. The truth is that a very small percentage of LEO's today are former military.
SWAT is usually a volunteer group of motivated officers with extra training.
Idiots who bash all cops as trigger-happy, gung-ho, power-trippers obviously do not really know any cops.
Join a ride-along program, many police departments have them.
I guess I'm biased too, because I agree.
There is a SWAT show on TV that shows them using SWAT to bust guys in cars after an undercover sells them something for $10. That is going too far.
Beg to differ. Many, many police are dedicated hard working individuals who believe in what they are doing and risk life and limb daily. However, too many are a hop, skip and jump from being jack booted thugs.
I have sat on juries where the "skin headed" cop was obviously lying and it took all had to convince the other jurors who were ready to convict because the cop said the guy did it.
One SWAT incident I've read about. The SWAT team went in to rescue a man who was emotionally unstable. There were weapons in the house but no people except this man.
They entered the house with their automatic weapons and were soon yelling for more ammo. Short time later one cop was dead, one was injured and the man was shot twice. He was immediately charged with murder.
Later they confirmed that all guns in the house were locked up and the man was unarmed. The police had fired 369 rounds and had shot each other.
Yes most cops are good people but it only takes a few to give them all a bad name. I believe police forces are becoming too militarized and their recruiting practices attract those who want the power. Getting to play with special weapons and gear has been emphasized in recruitment around the nation. Police no longer protect and serve, they patrol and monitor the human garbage.
The idea that we should just trust cops to protect our rights and we can relax the legal restrictions is silly.
In America our government works for the citizens and derives its power from the same. At least it used to be that way.
All police departments have them. Some of us just don't like the involuntary nature and the handcuffs.
If the rights of the people are upheld, the police will simply ignore the ruling.
Then it will still be up to the individuals who have suffered harm to find an attorney and sue the police.
Same thing as we have now.
Street! Take the rear!
I'm on it, Hondo!
TJ! Take the roof!
Yes, Sir!
Deac! Sweep the van!
Say whut?!
It all boils down to one simple question:
Are they Peace Officers, or Law Enforcement Officers?
The difference between the two is the Attitude . . .
I have little sympathy for fellows dressed in black with face-masks on and brandishing high-power weaponry who break into wrong houses unannounced and get shot at for it. The problem there is that you get a gunfight wherein the homeowner is always in the wrong even if he's in the right, and very likely dead as well. Any practice resulting this way needs serious examination.
Okay, so maybe using SWAT against an "emotionally unstable" person is going too far. But DRUGS are bad and we must do everything to stop DRUGS. Civil liberties are out the window in our war against some DRUGS. As a society we have accepted that it's either the DRUGS or the civil liberties -- and we absolutely will not accept DRUGS.
It's for the children, after all.
You have that right - Not down to a man, but on the majority I agree with you -
SWAT units / tactics / budgets are out of hand across the Country.
The effects of fighting the drug war is probably twice as bad as the damage drugs actually cause.
I'm inclined to agree, and I cannot imagine how such an abomination as Asset Forfeiture has survived in court.
exactly.
I agree.
Look, I was rasied to respect police officers and I always have but even I am deeply concerned at the militarization of our "Civilian" police forces. I whole heartedly agree that many police officers have long forgotten their job is to "Protect and SERVE" and not to be a source of income for the local government by collecting fines. Since when has law enforcement become a for profit business as most local government use them for today by depending on police generated fines for income in their budgets? That seems to provide a disingenuous motive to "Protect and Serve".
Also think about this. When I was a kid cops wore a shirt and a tie and their uniforms appeared very "civilian" with the exception of their badge and their gun. Today's street cops wear "Tactical Military" type uniforms and a swat team appear no different than special forces units.
If you put on a shirt and tie does that make you feel more or less agress than when you don paratrooper boots and an MPs uniform with your tactical gunbelt? That switch from "Civilian Enforcement" to "Military Police" is achieved just that easily. Even the haircut of cop has an affect on his behavior and attitude. When I was a kid, cops had regular haircuts. The only stipulation was that a cops hair had to be cut above his ears and above his collar. Cops today look like Marine recruits and act like it too. I know police have a dangerous job but policing the public is much different than policing soldiers. All too often our police forces are manned with former MPs and soldiers instead of civilians from the community as it was years ago. I love our military but someone who is a military mind set and militarily trained is not always best suited for civilian law enforcement. The public is not the enemy to be eliminated for every possible infraction. Civilians do not have to uphold the standards of a military corp in their everyday lives or else be thrown in the brig for conduct unbecoming. Civilian policing is a wholly different mindset.
Example: I remember when a cop would catch some teenagers out drinking beer. The cop would speak with them and if the kids were not completely wasted, distructive, dangerous or difficult but were just being teenagers, the cop would take away the beer and take their car keys and call their parents to come get them. As a result, the kids got dealt with by their parents without having to be put in jail with a criminal record and the kids respected the police for not ruining their young lives. Today, its straight to jail, no questions asked, a big Hoowah by the force for bagging another DUI and raking in money for the city and a kid is placed in a cell with other much harder criminals until he gets bail and then he is forced to pay his fine and to hang-out with even more repeat drunks and drug offenders doing community service and having psycho therapy sessions with these losers who expose these impressionable kids to even worse habits and re-enforce the idea that "The Man" is picking on them. That kid ends up back in jail nearly everytime.
I don't advocate going light on drunk driving but I do believe that some discretion should be used before placing an otherwise good kid into the criminal justice system where he will probably be made worse. "Civilian Police" can see the difference between a kid who has made an error in judgement and a criminal that should be prosecuted to the limits of the law. "Military Police" do not have or practice that discretion because any violator is the enemy to be eliminated.
I think that a good compromise would be if the police bust in and find drugs the evidence is admissible, but if they don't they go to jail. That would promote more responsibility among the people who, at this very moment, may be preparing to break down the wrong door and shoot you.
Follow the money my friend, follow the money.
well, despite all the ways a situation like that could have been defused, and since this boy was not in any position to harm anyone...he wanted to be alone in the room....despite the availability of water hoses, tear gas, or other non-lethal weapons, as this boy brought his gun down...only witnesses of course were the cops....they blasted him into smitherins and left him criticall injured, and although he lived, he is forever physically disabbled now and disfigured as well....
why?
of course, the cops in CYA mode, had numerous awards for the "courageous" shooters who ruined this kid for life...
the use of unrestrained force has gotten to epidemic levels and until some rich guy or some powerful guys son or dtr gets killed, it'll just be business as usual for the swat teams and cops in general....
Waco....Ruby Ridge...the case I just mentioned plus hundreds more....over zealous cops going overboard....
its because cops feel their first obligation is to take care of themselves, saving other people's lives is nice but plainly secondary...( eg.....Columbine)
I don't blame the cops on the line as much as I blame the air of impunity that the police chiefs have......
I have worked in Law Enforcement as a civilian and it is very neccessary tool because when you take away the right to bust down the door you put LEO's in grave danger.
I agree in the past there has been several accidental raids but that should fall back on the investigating officer and the judge or magistrate that allowed the search warrant to begin with.
"Who's on first?"
The SC has no choice but to side with Law Enforcement on this. If they do side with the defendant, it would cause a Tsunami...
Bump for later reading. Gotta go pick up some brewskis.
As a current cop, who was a SWAT cop for a while, and a veteran of the US Army who had no intention of making a career of it, may I be the first to say that you are full of shi*.
Don't care much for no-knocks either or abuse of any other police tactics either. IMHO, if someone ain't about to get killed, then there better be a darn good reason you didn't knock and announce
If all the prosecutor had was the words of LEOs, I'd be heavily diposed to vote 'not guilty'. Too many prosecutors and cops will lie to get a conviction.
Law enforcement is going to lose this one, and they should.
Cops break into the wrong house and get blown away, it's an easy not guilty verdict from me. I could imagine conditions where I would vote not guilty if they broke into the RIGHT house.
Why is it necessary to use these violent tactics for suspects who have not been shown to be violent or for petty crimes. One example was a guy suspected of exceeding his daily limit of fish.
Which one do you think this guy is?
Where is our confusion here?
lol...
I'm glad you are still on the force, we need good cops out there to reign in the bad.
People might have the impression that I'm a 'cop basher'. This is incorrect, I respect and admire good LEO's. But the gung-ho types really need to be controlled. I know if someone breaks into my house in the early morning hours, unannounced, I would treat that person or persons as hostile and take appropriate measures.
I was with Dallas PD for a while. Most street officers thought the "SWAT" (back then it was "Tactical") teams were, with a few exceptions, the biggest bunch of primadonnas around. I watched the show twice out of curiosity and had to turn it off. It was all, "Look at me, I can kick down a door, and my wife is ready to bitch me out when I get home because I forgot her birthday."
Don't care much for no-knocks either or abuse of any other police tactics either. IMHO, if someone ain't about to get killed, then there better be a darn good reason you didn't knock and announce
(from bio.)(snip)For the last 15 years I've been a police officer (it beats working for a living) for a municipality in Pierce County. The highlights of my police tour of duty have been serving on a Street Crimes/Narcotics Unit for five years and four years as a SWAT Team sniper. All in all, it's been a pretty humbling experience. I never thought I'd be a cop in my younger days, but what the heck...I'm pretty good at it. Some of the high points over the last year have been complaints from "concerned" citizens about me telling folks to arm themselves and listening to Rush Limbaugh on duty.
I have a few hobbies which include home-brewing beer, mostly wheat based ales.(snip)
I find the WOD part of a large hypocrisy. I mean, wth are the various government agencies spending billions of $$$ vilifying in various methods cigarettes (and other tobaccy products) and liquor products which are all perfectly legal. Yet the governments reap windfall tax revenue from smokes and booze. Yet the true illicit and dangerous narcotics remain untaxed, billions of dollars of our money is spent and civil forfeiture laws are abused and the focus seems to be on punishing honest subjects…I mean citizens, who get hosed every time they want a smoke or a beer. Smacks of hypocrisy in my book. The end of the WOD would mean the end of many a bureaucrat’s job I suppose, but it’s time to win it or tax it. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not for legalization of narcotics, but the time to crap or get of the pot is long past due(snip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mention in your bio. that you brew beer and that you have some problems with the way the war against drugs is carried out. From what I can tell your problem with the WOD's is that the governments can't seem to derive enough revenue from citizens who participate in illicit substances.
What I'm curious about is if a citizen planted a few cannabis plants for personal use (like you do on brewing your beer) and smoked the cannabis on private property - do you think the governments should be trying to convict that citizen of a crime?
My comment is not needed here, these folks are kicking themselves in the teeth just fine HG !!.........LMAO !!
Not quite. But if the government doesn't seem fit to win the WOD, then I can live with certain gov't controls that would tax dope, not meth or MDMA, like legal products liquor and cigarettes. So it might as well tax dope but if in some weird fantasy we decide to shut it down, then good. But until that time, I'll do my job as always.
What I'm curious about is if a citizen planted a few cannabis plants for personal use (like you do on brewing your beer) and smoked the cannabis on private property - do you think the governments should be trying to convict that citizen of a crime?
No prob. Keeping in mind not all private property is closed to the general public, personally I'd say limit it to the home and don't let me know about it. Professionally, I've looked the other way in similar cases a few times to get bigger fish. My beer rocks btw...8>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.