Buffalo's Stampede Against Privacy

Reason ^ | June 21, 2006 | Radley Balko

[neverdem]

City of Light's finest bomb houses, arrest scores, kill dogs, and achieve nothing

"We're going to have to be mobile, agile and slightly hostile in trying to get the job of policing done in the City of Buffalo," Buffalo Police Chief H. McCarthy Gipson announced when he was appointed to his position in February 2006.

In April, Buffalo police made good on the boss's promise. The city conducted a massive anti-drug sweep from April 18 to April 20, dubbed "Operation Shock and Awe." Scores of police officers dressed in battle gear conducted 38 no-knock SWAT raids over the course of three days. They deployed diversionary grenades, broke down doors with battering rams, stormed residences with guns ablaze, and arrested 78 people.

"We are declaring war on street-level drug dealing," Gipson told two reporters from the Buffalo News, whom he invited along for one of the raids. The reporters described the scene:

A loud "flash bang" concussion device detonated inside a Kensington Avenue house as Buffalo police SWAT officers, clad in black armor and brandishing automatic assault rifles, stormed a lower apartment.

"Buffalo police. Search warrant. Buffalo police," the officers yelled to the stunned occupants inside.

Within seconds, several shotgun blasts were fired. At the same instant, another officer cradled a 1-year-old boy out the front door and down a flight of steps to safety.

When the smoke cleared, three large pit bull terriers lay dead, in pools of their own blood. And five people were in handcuffs.

By April 21, police were boasting of their take: six pounds of marijuana, seven ounces of crack cocaine, and five guns. Given the size of and scope of the operation, however, the bounty was rather spare. Six pounds of marijuana and seven ounces of crack from nearly forty residences, all of which housed suspected drug dealers? A massive, armored force of SWAT teams in battle garb, storming "all corners of the city," was necessary to seize just five guns?

Nevertheless, shortly after the raids, Chief Gipson declared victory. "This has put a dent in the drug trade, put some operations out of business and addressed the fears of some of the residents," he said.

Or not. A month later, the Buffalo News ran a follow-up piece under the headline "How effective is drug war?; After flurry of arrests, many cases dismissed or suspects released." Turns out, Gipson's "dent" was barely a nick. The six pounds of marijuana police claimed to have seized was actually 4 pounds, 13 ounces. Three-and-a-half pounds of that came by way of an unrelated traffic stop that had nothing to do with the raids.

Not surprisingly, twenty-one ounces of marijuana and seven ounces of crack wasn't enough contraband to keep the 78 people rounded up from the raids in jail. Sixteen were immediately released with no criminal charges. Another 32 were out of jail within 24 hours, due to insufficient evidence. Just 20 face felony charges, though it's unclear how many of those will actually stick.

City leaders were furious. Not because the Buffalo police department carpet-bombed the city with violent, highly militaristic raids in a manner that needlessly terrorized dozens of innocent citizens. Civic leaders fumed because they had already rushed to the media to take credit for the "get tough" approach, and now had some explaining to do.

City Council Member Dominic Bonifacio Jr. called the dismissals "a slap in the face to our men in blue," and blamed—apparently with a straight face—New York State's Rockefeller drug laws. "There's always talk about New York [State] being too hard on drug users," he said. "But maybe they need to be harder on the drug dealers."

More ominously, many civic leaders in Buffalo are now looking at a program called "Operation Clean Sweep," a project started in the city several years ago that sends housing and safety inspectors out with drug cops. The inspectors' presence enables police to get inside the home without a search warrant. One can only imagine how it might be used in conjunction with "Operation Shock and Awe."

It's an increasingly common tactic. In June 2004, for example, more than 70 police officers conducted a massive SWAT raid on a billiards bar in Manassas Park, Virginia under the pretext of an inspection from the state alcohol board. It was unquestionably a drug raid, and officers turned the bar upside down in pursuit of evidence against its owner. But the presence of the Alcohol Beverage Control officers allowed the entire raid to take place without the legal hurdle of procuring a search warrant.

The Buffalo News reports that several police officials referenced Operation Clean Sweep in speculating how they might go about organizing future raids, adding that, "Police also are looking into working with federal housing officials to seize problem drug houses."

The timing of the Operation Shock and Awe is also suspicious. The raids came just days after Erie County Executive Joel Giambra publicly came out against the Drug War. Giambra held a press conference with members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a new group of ex-cops and prosecutors advocating the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Giambra's not exactly a profile in political courage—his tenure has been plagued by allegations of fraud and corruption. Still, his apostasy on the issue stands in stark contrast to the hardened positions of the political leaders around him. And his long-running feud with local police organizations, including the Buffalo PD, casts doubt on the timing of the raids.

As for the specific raid described by those reporters from the Buffalo News, a different account emerged weeks later in the paper's letters to the editor:

The warrant they had was for marijuana only, not guns or narcotics, as one News reporter wrote. A loud, concussion device was detonated first, and then shotgun blasts were heard all the way down the street. A 1-year-old child was present at the time, and he wasn't carried out of the house in the same instant as the shotgun blasts started, as reported.

This child not only heard all this, but also witnessed his beloved pets get brutally slaughtered right in front of his tender eyes. Oddessy, a boxer mix; her pup, Snoop; and a pit bull terrier, Ginger, were all pets. They weren't fighters, vicious or unlicensed—they were friendly, lovable dogs; just ask anyone who knew them.

When the officers came in, they came to kill the dogs. Oddessy ran between one of her owner's legs, and was blasted in the head. Snoop was shot twice. Ginger was shot as she ran into a back bedroom, where she was cornered by officers and hit with four more shotgun blasts. The dogs were carried out of the house in garbage bags.

It's unlikely that city officials will be deterred. Buffalo PD Chief of Detectives Dennis Richards told the Buffalo News that Shock and Awe was "just the beginning." "There will certainly be more raids in the future," he said. "You can count on that... We're looking at small-scale, large-scale, street-level... We're looking at top to bottom."

That's troubling news for low-income residents of Buffalo, those most likely to be targeted by wide-net operations like Shock and Awe. It's even worse news for their pets.

 

Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute.

[bk1000]

I am afraid if thugs like this busted in and shot my dogs I would have to (eventually) retaliate in some manner that would be unacceptable to many on FR.

[coconutt2000]

Operation Over Kill


It sounds like the Buffalo PD needs to refrain from big operations until they can beef up their intel department. Drug dealers operate in a framework that links to organized crime. I'm sure the FBI, CIA, and NSA have tons of information that big city police departments could use to roll up operations in their cities.

But information sharing in non-terror related criminal cases is probably still against public policy.

[highimpact]

Jack-Booted Thugs Ping

[patton]

sad.

[ThanhPhero]

They ALWAYS kill the pets. The cats they usually just stomp.

[jjones9853]

I agree!

[Sarajevo]

"Land of the Free?" Hahahaha!

Welcome to the USSA

[HAL9000]

City Council Member Dominic Bonifacio Jr. called the dismissals "a slap in the face to our men in blue," and blamed—apparently with a straight face—New York State's Rockefeller drug laws. "There's always talk about New York [State] being too hard on drug users," he said. "But maybe they need to be harder on the drug dealers."

That reminds me of a long-forgotten Clinton scandal, when he was governor of Arkansas and refused to extradite a cocaine smuggler to New York because, in his view, the New York laws were unfair. Someone should ask Hillary about that incident sometime.

[yeff]

Unfortunately, too many people are more concerned about the killing of pets than the travesty of disintegrating freedoms for American humans.

And yeah, if they shot my amazingly mild mannered Dutchie, I'd like to think that I'd go all Rambo on someone. But what would I really do? Dunno. I hope I never have to find out, but the day seems to be getting nearer all the time.

[rogue yam]

I am not jumping on the JBT-phobic bandwagon just yet here. This article is deliberately inflammatory and misleading. Twenty people (apparently) now face felony drug charges and no human beings were injured in the process. Sure, Reason Magazine and some FReepers think that drugs should be legal. But guess what? They're not. People who are suspected of felonies were arrested. Get over it. It seems that some people have no idea what gun-toting drug dealers are like. If there were twenty drug dealers in your neighborhood, wouldn't you want them gone?

[SmoothTalker]

Disgusting. Another example of why the war on drugs has been a tremendous failure.

[SmoothTalker]

"It seems that some people have no idea what gun-toting drug dealers are like."

Very true and it was the government drug war that made them into what they are. Much like prohibition led to the rise of violent booze gangs.

[Publius Valerius]

If there were twenty drug dealers in your neighborhood, wouldn't you want them gone?

Yes, maybe so, but at what price? In its recent decision regarding no-knock warrants, Justice Scalia opined that police departments were "more professional" than they were in the 1960s. I'm just really not sure that's the case, and I think that something like this is a good example. Police departments are certainly more militaristic, but I'm not sure that equates with professional.

I'm seeing how police departments are evolving, and I'm not sure that I like it at all.

[rogue yam]

Very true and it was the government drug war that made them into what they are. Much like prohibition led to the rise of violent booze gangs.

Yours is the stupidest argument known to man. These vicious, drug dealing scumbags are not vicious scumbags because the public (not the "government") has chosen to make certain drugs illegal. Rather they are vicious scumbags because they themselves have chosen to be such. And why? For the money. If all drugs were legal, would these same individuals simply choose to have no money? Of course not. They want money just like you want money and I want money. They would simply find some other way to apply their inate selfishness and thuggishness to the task of getting themselves the cash they seek. They are scum and it's no one's fault but their own. Wise up, dude!

[rogue yam]

Yes, maybe so, but at what price?

Well, let's see. Twenty accused felons arrested and three pit bulls shot. That works out to about seven felons per dog. Is that too expensive for you? Not for me, but of course preferences vary.

[SmoothTalker]

Regulate and legalize pot and some of the softer drugs and you'd see a tremendous drop in drug related violence. Quit sending people to jail for minor possession of the rest of 'em and you'd see another tremendous drop.

[rogue yam]

Regulate and legalize pot and some of the softer drugs and you'd see a tremendous drop in drug related violence. Quit sending people to jail for minor possession of the rest of 'em and you'd see another tremendous drop.

A few of points:

(1) I have not argued here on this thread either for or against drug legalization.

(2) The issue is not "drug related violence" it is violence.

(3) My point was quite simple; people seek money. Not just for illegal drugs, but for everything. Those with intelligence, education, skills, impulse control, etc. have a certain menu of options by which they may obtain money. Others have a more attenuated menu.

(4) Of those people who desire more money than their skill-set will afford them legally to obtain, some subset resort to crime. These people are scum.

(5) You said that the government created these people.

(6) You are wrong. They created themselves.

(7) While it is possible that changing the drug laws would result in fewer people in total choosing crime, that does not mean that these particular scumbags (the ones arrested in the story atop this thread) would be among those who chose the straight life.

(8) Therefore there is no rational reason to make excuses for these, or any other, gun-toting criminal scumbags. To excuse their criminality is an injustice to their victims, and to their peers who stayed straight.

[lentulusgracchus]

Good post.

[neverdem]

New York Investigates Skating Rink for Playing Christian Music

The Battle for Roethlisberger's Brain - Is freedom just another word for falling on your face? Bloomboob gets plenty of dishonorable mention.

NYC councilman proposes limiting fast food (Holy HotDogStand, BatMan, What next?)

Revised Design for 9/11 Memorial Saves Many Features and Lowers Cost It includes six graphical renderings of the design.

FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list. You can't make this stuff up.

[neverdem]

Yours is the stupidest argument known to man.

What's the reason for the gratuitous insult, if I may ask? It wasnt to me, but I posted the article.

These vicious, drug dealing scumbags are not vicious scumbags because the public (not the "government") has chosen to make certain drugs illegal.

All of the states have a republican form of government, i.e. their representatives make the laws, except in states where plebicites are also allowed for initiatives and referenda. Their representatives typically pander to an uninformed public, playing to their basest fears.

Rather they are vicious scumbags because they themselves have chosen to be such. And why? For the money.

The money is not there without a black market. Check with some physicians about what drug causes the most harm. It's alcohol. Hands down, unless it's used in moderation. That's an iffy proposition.

[Hong Kong Expat]

If there were twenty drug dealers in your neighborhood, wouldn't you want them gone?

Dealers aren't the problem, they want the places where they live and work to be nice and quiet. No need to draw attention to themselves. Users are the problem, they'll steal from every block except the dealer's.

[Zon]

I agree that drug dealers having gun-battle turf wars is the fault of the drug dealers. Perhaps if the government didn't create the black market set up that facilitates the drug dealers they would instead resort to robbing people. That didn't occur with the end of alcohol prohibition. 

If politicians and bureaucrats didn't create so many gun control laws that violate the 2nd amendment the criminals would be dissuaded from robbery since they wouldn't know who was carrying a gun. Plus, more people would conceal carry if not for government violations of the 2nd amendment.

If drug prohibition were ended users wouldn't be robbing people to get their fix. Don't see alcoholics robbing people to get their next drink.

Each person is accountable for their actions. When alcohol prohibition ended violent crime plummeted. The same would likely occur with the end of drug prohibition.

All in all. politicians, namely members of congress, have disarmed people via gun control laws and created the conditions for violent drug-turf wars by prohibiting certain drugs. Pure propaganda demonizing marijuana was foisted on the public. 

The constitution doesn't grant the government the power to prohibit any substance. Politicians of the day in 1917 knew that in order to prohibit alcohol that they had to amend the constitution with the 18th amendment.

Politicians creating drug prohibition laws have done so via the notion that the constitution is a living document. That what was illegal for politicians to do without amending the constitution in 1917 was legal in 1937.

How many thousands of drug dealers has there been over the last sixty-nine years? How much illicit-drug-related violence has occurred? How many innocent citizens have had their rights violated in the name of fighting drug-prohibition? What's the monetary cost to those victims? Drug prohibition laws and enforcement has cost tax payers over a trillion dollars. 

The root of those problems is members of congress violating their oaths to honor and uphold the United States Constitution. Their lies the cancer. The above problems are the symptoms.

Additional note:

Legislating from the bench is a misnomer, at best. Congress is responsible for ensuring that the laws they pass do not violate the constitution. The courts and jurors merely rule on a case by case basis how the laws should apply -- not whether the law violates the constitution. Just as a juror should judge the facts and the law as it pertains to a specific case and nullify for that specific case, so should supreme court judges/jurors. Up until 1894 judges routinely informed jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. That was in accordance with the 6th amendment assurance that the defendant would have an impartial jury. Elected officials -- congress -- create the laws. Appointed bureaucrats -- judges -- judge how the laws apply on a case by case basis.

- -

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- LEAP. In the trenches judges, prosecutors, LEOs, DEA, etc. that have seen the WOD from the inside.

[Zon]

Is this article one for the ping list?

[rogue yam]

What's the reason for the gratuitous insult, if I may ask?

It is not a gratuitous insult. Beneath the hyperbole, I'm saying that individual responsibility is the very root of our civilization.

[rogue yam]

Good post.

Thanks.

[metesky]

In its recent decision regarding no-knock warrants, Justice Scalia opined that police departments were "more professional" than they were in the 1960s.

Now they all have Associates Degrees in Crimbinal Justice from Falling Leaves Junior College so they be a lot smarter.

[metesky]

(2) The issue is not "drug related violence" it is violence.

As far as I can see, the only violence cited in the article came from the "law".

[ninonitti]

"It seems that some people have no idea what gun-toting drug dealers are like."

Uhhhhh kinda like gun toting thugs in black body armor??????Just as drug companies have perverted the idea of medicine as a healing art so too have the cop toys/equipment companies have twisted the art of policing into something done through the barrel of a gun.

Respect for law grows from selfrespecting enforcers of the law not revenue collectors/animal control officers who have no contact or context in the community they "police".

[from occupied ga]

I am afraid if thugs like this busted in and shot my dogs I would have to (eventually) retaliate in some manner that would be unacceptable to many on FR.

PROGRESS

1776 - Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

2006 The inspectors' presence enables police to get inside the home without a search warrant.

I would be less worried about the dogs and more concerned about the risk to yourself, but I agree with the sentiment. And this sort of Gestapo tactic invites reprisals

[rogue yam]

As far as I can see, the only violence cited in the article came from the "law".

In my post I used the word "violence" only in reference to its use in the post to which I responded. For this reason your reply to me is illogical and worthless.

[KeepUSfree]

I would seek them out, hunt them down and kill them slowly. Period.

[CDHart]

I love your tag line!

Carolyn

[metesky]

GFYS.

[from occupied ga]

I would seek them out, hunt them down and kill them slowly. Period

The number of these Gestapo raids as increasing every year throughout the Union of Socialist States of America. It is only a matter of time before they trigger the wrong person and you see some sort of McVeigh type response. - Something like phoning in a drug tip to a house rigged with a fertilizer bomb or a house rigged with methyl bromide or mustard gas or the Iraq favorite a roadside bomb.

[Zon]

I'm saying that individual responsibility is the very root of our civilization.

The root of the anti-civilization is dishonesty, rationality and criminality. The root of a civilization is fully integrated honesty.

Unlike truth that has many gray areas, honesty has none. Something is either honest or not honest.

Continued in post 23.

[dljordan]

"I am afraid if thugs like this busted in and shot my dogs I would have to (eventually) retaliate in some manner that would be unacceptable to many on FR."

I have similar sentiments. The number of FReepers that applaud tyranny such as this is amazing.

[Zon]

As far as I can see, the only violence cited in the article came from the "law".

You're right. I notice that vegetable boy is silent on that.

[ActionNewsBill]

Police State Bump

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[rogue yam]

The number of FReepers that applaud tyranny such as this is amazing.

You're being an idiot.

[Leatherneck_MT]

It's only a matter of time before a neighborhood or city gets tired of being treated like this and begins ambushing cops.

I've no great love for drug dealers, but the tactics used here are highly questionable. Sounds like a bunch of wannabes out to look like the Marines at Iwo Jima.

[dljordan]

" You're being an idiot."

Futue te ipsum!

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[freepatriot32]

Is this article one for the ping list?

Yes it is thanks for the ping

[Bernard]

Six pounds of marijuana and seven ounces of crack from nearly forty residences, all of which housed suspected drug dealers? A massive, armored force of SWAT teams in battle garb, storming "all corners of the city," was necessary to seize just five guns?

Maybe there just is not much in the way of drugs in Buffalo. Maybe the problem has been hyped in order to obtain funding for uniforms, weapons, etc. Maybe a lot of things, but that many hits into a target rich environment should produce more impressive statistics. Maybe some more funding would help that too...

[mugs99]

It seems that some people have no idea what gun-toting drug dealers are like. If there were twenty drug dealers in your neighborhood, wouldn't you want them gone?

So, it would be okay with you if a swat team invaded your home, killed your dog and hauled you off to jail to catch 20 others who were in possession of pot or coke?

Keep in mind that they still have not released any info showing they captured even one dealer. 78 homes invaded, 58 innocent victims of police state excess...and that is okay with you!
.

[rogue yam]

So, it would be okay with you if a swat team invaded your home, killed your dog and hauled you off to jail to catch 20 others who were in possession of pot or coke?

Keep in mind that they still have not released any info showing they captured even one dealer. 78 homes invaded, 58 innocent victims of police state excess...and that is okay with you!

Your post is stupid and rude, but I will reply to it anyway.

The police in question executed legal warrants. As I posted above, this article is a profoundly inflamatory and dishonest description of the police's actions. I am not any where near stupid or crazy enough to get suckered in by such nonsense. Thanks anyway.

Executing warrants is part of the police's job. I am certainly "ok" with people doing their jobs. If the police did this to me it would be a mistake on their part as I have absolutely no association with criminals or drugs. Depending on the circumstances, I would likely seek redress for any losses I suffered as a result of their mistake. To anticipate the next question: No, I would hope and expect that the experience would not turn me into an obnoxious, raving, "libertarian" moron.

As for the rest of what you wrote, you have the few facts wrong and are also making stuff up. What you libertaroid jackasses fail to understand is that we conservatives have heard your nonsense and have rejected it and you because we are not insane. But hey, have fun at the 2008 Libertarian Party convention, loser.

[ActionNewsBill]

No, I would hope and expect that the experience would not turn me into an obnoxious, raving, "libertarian" moron.

Ronald Reagan the Libertarian

Here's a quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.

The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Your bashing of libertarian philosophy is at odds with what Reagan had to say about it.

[ActionNewsBill]

If the police did this to me it would be a mistake on their part as I have absolutely no association with criminals or drugs.

Neither did these people. They are all dead, killed by police.

John Adams
64 years old
Lebanon, Tennessee
October, 2000

Shot to death during a SWAT drug raid while watching TV. The house didn't match the description on the warrant.

Annie Rae Dixon
84 years old
Tyler, Texas
January, 1993

Bedridden with pneumonia during a drug raid. Officer kicked open her bedroom door and accidentally shot her.

Patrick Dorismond
26 years old
New York, New York
March, 2000

Patrick was a security guard who wanted to become a policeman. He was off-duty and unarmed when he went out with friends. Standing on the street looking for a taxi, he was approached by undercover police who asked to buy some marijuana from him. Patrick was offended by the request (he didn't use drugs), and a scuffle ensued. Dorismond was then shot to death by the police.

Willie Heard
46 years old
Osawatomie, Kansas
February, 1999

SWAT conducted a no-knock drug raid, complete with flash-bang grenades. Heard was shot to death in front of his wife and 16-year-old daughter who had cried for help. Fearing home invasion, he was holding an empty rifle. The raid was at the wrong house.

Ismael Mena
45 years old
Denver, Colorado
September, 1999

Mena was killed when police barged into his house looking for drugs. They had the wrong address.

Pedro Oregon Navarro
22 yeqrs old
July, 1998

Following up on a tip from a drug suspect, 6 officers crowded into a hallway outside Navarro's bedroom. When the door opened, one officer shouted that he had a gun. Navarro's gun was never fired, but officers fired 30 rounds, with 12 of them hitting Pedro. No drugs were found.

Plenty more victims at this link.

Drug War Victims