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 ...
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.
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.