Posted on 01/22/2015 10:15:22 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra
ATLANTA-Carrie Mills is a retired Atlanta Police officer with 30 years on the job - primarily in APD's drug unit.
Mills is now a union rep for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. She considers herself an expert on search warrants, particularly no knock warrants, which allows officers to enter a structure without knocking first.
Mills says no-knock warrants helped close a lot of cases while she was an officer.
"If we knock and announced, all evidence is going to be destroyed," Mills said.
State Sen. Vincent Fort, (D-39), has announced plans to introduce a bill that would make it harder to get no-knock warrants.
Fort says he was moved to introduce his bill after 19-month-old Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh was seriously injured when a flash grenade exploded near his face during a botched drug raid involving a no-knock warrant in Habersham County.
"We are saying there should be restrictions on them and we think the situation in the recent past where they have been abused warrants that," Fort said.
But Mills doesn't agree.
"I don't think any changes are needed because it is not easy now," Mills said.
Mills says law makers should be careful what they ask for.
"You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both," Mills said.
Fort says he hopes a bipartisan bill addressing no knock warrants will be passed this year.
1) All SWAT teams and their actions should be placed under the control of the local elected Sheriff.
2) All “no-knock” warrants should be reviewed by a Judge under “strict scrutiny” rules and be limited to situations where there is imminent danger to life and limb.
3) All “no-knock” warrants should be required to have an accompanied surety bond against damage and injury should the stated objective of the warrant not be found.
4) All “no-knock” warrant actions should be automatically reviewed by a panel of citizens for violations of policy.
This isn't an either/or situation. You can have them both. To say otherwise is being lazy, disingenuous and outright fascist.
Their introduction came with the War on Drugs, which itself is unconstitutional and part and parcel with "jackbooted thug" behavior on the part of the police.
Apparently they don’t understand that it’s criminal for them to go around bustin’ down citizens’ doors.
“Silence, Citizen! A police state is a safe state!”
Yeah, it’s better to keep a few dealers from flushing the stash than to prevent killing of innocent people.
A couple of months ago in Tampa, the cops got one of those “difficult” no knock warrants based on the word of a drug informer trying to cut a deal. He picked a name out of the air and the cops smashed in the door and killed the man who had no connection to anything, then went oops. Our bad. But we followed procedure so we did nothing wrong.
IMO, no knock warrants are only for when there is good cause to believe a person’s life is in imminent danger.
Here again is why the so called war on drugs is a disaster of monumental proportions. And has accomplished absolutely none what they claim it is for. Except wholesale destruction of civil liberties, which also IMO is an intended consequence they don’t mention.
Well what Law Enforcement wants, the poly tishuns will give
Could someone please hand this useful idiot a copy of our founding documents and ask her to point out where there's a "right to live in a crime-free environment" clause? I don't recall hearing about that anywhere. They're just making shit up at this point.
You might be able to have them both, but the courts have ruled that the police aren't obligated to provide it. They want you to give up your privacy in exchange for a crime-free environment, but then disavow any responsibility for providing it once you do.
Which is a rather wicked bait and switch.
It seems that all that is left here is robotic rhetoric. There must be a law in that state against anybody thinking.
Any no-knock warrant served on the wrong address and results in death must be treated as a first degree murder.
Plus no charges against any resident of said house who resists with deadly force.
There is no “right to live in a crime-free environment”.
What there is, is a *right* to keep and bear arms, a right to defend our homes and neighborhoods. And a *right* to privacy which we keep because we defend ourselves.
What kind of fascist pig says he should have the power to violate the Bill of Rights for some BS imaginary protection he claims to provide. Which BTW, the courts have ruled he is under no obligation to provide. And he couldn’t anyway. Anyone here think there was no crime in the Soviet Union?
Give the choice then I'll take my privacy, thank you very much.
” A police state is a safe state!””
Until the cops “no-knock” the wrong house, and splatter the occupant all over the walls......
We the people are just collateral damage in the never ending war on drugs.
That much is clear.
A regrettable speed bump on the road to social utopia.
Cops now have too much power, and WAY too much SWAT & military equipment.
WayneS to police unions who tell lawmakers not to mess with no-knock warrants: F—k YOU!
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.