Posted on 08/17/2008 12:46:00 PM PDT by ellery
Someone who breaks into a person's dwelling with the intention of accosting the occupants, without a reasonable belief that the action is legitimate, is a robber.
A cop who breaks into a dwelling without looking at the warrant and confirming that the address is correct cannot have a reasonable belief that his action is legitimate; such a person is thus by definition a robber and he should be prosecuted as such. If he can convince a jury that he had a reasonable belief that his actions were legitimate, they should acquit, but I doubt most juries would look too favorably upon a cop who didn't even bother to read the warrant he was supposed to be serving.
My god, this is so overly dramatic that it belongs on Bravo for Project Runway or something.
Please, where is the proof of deliberate intent to be in the wrong place? That is pure craziness IMO.
They usually raid major suppliers and dealers, not minor users.
There is also the issue of the guns, mobbed up people and often times these days money that goes back to terrorist through drug profits.
Not good stuff.
What is wrong with the traditional standby of asphalt and plumage?
In cases where the cop could not have had a reasonable belief that the warrant service was legitimate, is there any good reason why it shouldn't be prosecuted as burglary or robbery, or--depending upon what transpires--attempted or actual murder?
It is patently unreasonable for a cop to not even bother to read a warrant. Unreasonable break-ins are, per Amendments IV and XIV and Article VI, illegitimate. Illegitimate break-ins are burglary at best, and if someone is killed, murder. So why no prosecutions for such?
Cops who wanted to avoid the risk of a murder rap could take the time to ensure their warrant service was legitimate. Is there any reason that requiring them to do so would be a bad thing?
I have no heartburn about that... It’s sad that it’s fallen out of favor in recent decades. But in the present instance, I think a PERMANENT solution to be best. And a 2-3 week stay in the embrace of the Iron Maiden followed by that long dirt nap (the inevitable outcome of her embrace) would, in my never to be humble opinion, go far toward letting our employees learn the limitations on their grant of authority.
Their very PRESENCE in the wrong house is clear and convincing evidence that they did NOT practice due diligence and are no better than robbers, burglars and other lowlifes. I would convict in a NY second.
All right. Explain where my logic is incorrect.
Proposition 1: Any reasonably prudent cop serving a warrant will actually read the warrant to confirm that it is at least facially valid and facially authorizes the exact search being undertaken (including the address), prior to breaking into the target dwelling. Do you have any disagreement with that?
Corollary 1: Breaking into a dwelling for purposes of serving a warrant, without having first examined the warrant in question to confirm that it at least facially valid and at least facially authorizes the search being undertaken (including the address) is patently unreasonable. Do you disagree with that?
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...." Unreasonable searches are forbidden. Any disagreement?
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." The Constitution, including Amendment IV, is the supreme Law of the Land. Any statutes, rules, or government actions which violate the Constitution are thus illegitimate. Any disagreement there?
Conclusion 1: since it is unreasonable for agents of the state to break into people's houses to serve warrants without having read the warrants first, and since unreasonable searches are illegitimate, therefore agents of the state who break into people's houses to serve warrants without having read them first do so illegitimately. Any problems here?
Proposition 2: Unlawful breaking and entering of a dwelling constitutes burglary if done without the intention of accosting any occupants, or robbery if done with the intention of accosting the occupants. Further, if anyone dies in the course of a burglary, the crime escalates to murder. Any objections to that proposition?
Conclusion 2: Cops who break into occupied dwellings with warrants that do not even facially authorize such conduct (at the address being broken into) are robbers. If you disagree, please explain what step you have trouble with.
Too bad there's no way a "prosecutor" would bother to introduce any evidence that the cop ever came within ten miles of the house he broke into, much less actually broke into it. The concept of "privately funded prosecutions" runs into some trouble with double jeopardy, but I would think there should be a way for people to ensure that police are actually prosecuted by people who want to convict them. Perhaps there could be a procedure by which a private citizen who wanted to pay the appropriate legal costs could have his own attorney ask his own questions of each witness after the state prosecutor has asked his, and call his own witnesses after the state prosecutor has finished his case. There would still be only one trial, so there should be no 'double-jeopardy' issue. The only restriction on the private prosecutor which would not apply to the state's attorney is that he would be forbidden from asking leading questions that were favorable to the defendant and the state prosecutor would be allowed to raise objections (to prevent the defendant from hiring a phony prosecutor who would try to undermine the case).
Your notion does have some real potential... I like it!
says who??? you ? the junkie thats lookin to cut a deal ???
nevermind the houses regularly hit...
An apologist for tyrants is more dangerous than all the 'illegal' drugs on the streets...
I truly hope all your neighbors are pure as the driven snow and you dont have a very common name or street easily goofed street addy...for your kids sake...
LFOD...
“I know I wouldn’t want to be an officer, tough mostly thankless job.”
It takes an arrogant, egotistical, holier than thou attitude to be a cop, almost like a liberal. Most people don’t have that attitude.
What you are saying though about them being no different than robbers, burglars and other lowlifes and how you would quickly convict them speaks far more about YOU than them IMO.
The USMC at times makes these same kinds of mistakes all over the world with good intent during the process of defending us and at times the world.
I guess the soldiers by your current thinking would also have to be bad guys you would convict also in a NY minute?
If not, it suggests an inconsistency in your view.
If you are biased against cops in raids versus the military, to me it would give me the impression the reasons for the harsh vies might be a pro drug (legalizing drugs) bias?
I'm not saying that I am right about your views, but the way you want to go ape against the cops (mostly ex-military) makes me thing you have an agenda driven anger.
I might be getting the wrong impression of the reason for your views against the cops, but that is how it came off to me especially considering the great USMC that is in your name.
#1B: I got the impression from the story that they were to go in with the warrant.
About the IVth: The people set up the system where these Judges with supposed due cause are allowed to give warrants so officers can conduct for saftey the people's business and take the very bad people off the streets.
Somebody got part of the reading wrong of the warrant and that is all.
They somehow showed up in the right city, street and building. They just misread the number.
That is terrible, about six procedures need to be in place to prevent such mistakes.
Firefighters, cops, military, paramedics and pizza delivery guys all end up at the wrong door every so often.
In the case of warrants, they should do a better job and try to move at the speed of a glacier IMO when dealing with verifications of ESPECIALLY the address.
The officers were operating in good faith and don't all deserve the death penalty for trying to do their job.
Their is no logic IMO in your conclusions and you have to take extraordinary assumptions of what happened, what was thought concerning the incident and you have to touch it off with mass criminal intent.
That IMO is the stuff of comic book plots, not something to apply to this horrible incident and mistake.
That they came to the wrong door indicates that NO ONE bothered to read the warrant and match it to the address they were at, THAT IS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. Period. End of story.
As for troops at war, for you to even DREAM of equating the two situations shows your extreme disregard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Supreme Law of our Land. The limitations on governmental authority contained in the Constitution DO NOT PERMIT this sort of behavior on the part of police officers (or, in this, as in altogether too many cases, goons and thugs passing as cops). Not EVER, for any reason. Cops are NOT MILITARY TROOPS ENGAGED IN WAR. Unless you want the government to be engaged in war against its own citizens (which often seems the case and which you often cheer on), there is NEVER a place for this sort of behavior.
Further, the grave damage done by the war on some drugs and the so-called USA-PATRIOT act to our Constitution demonstrate that the government (at ANY level) is NOT FIT to have such powers and never WILL be. You can say what you want about my views and “agenda,” but I mean to see the Constitution restored to its rightful place, even if it means that the likes of YOU get to have your freedom to be a jackass restored at the same time.
Beyond that, I could care less about your “opinion,” thanks so much.
So
What
Address
Then?
How did they get the right city, the right street, the right building and so forth if they weren't making a good faith effort to go to the right door? There is no intent to purposely damage, so your CRIMINALITY part is silly to be pushing. Of course the NEGLEGENCE is the issue and why one or more people deserves to be sued and fired.
"As for troops at war, for you to even DREAM of equating the two situations shows your extreme disregard for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Supreme Law of our Land. The limitations on governmental authority contained in the Constitution DO NOT PERMIT this sort of behavior on the part of police officers (or, in this, as in altogether too many cases, goons and thugs passing as cops). Not EVER, for any reason. Cops are NOT MILITARY TROOPS ENGAGED IN WAR. Unless you want the government to be engaged in war against its own citizens (which often seems the case and which you often cheer on), there is NEVER a place for this sort of behavior."
Here is where you go to visit the wizard in Oz for your theories IMO. Police, fire fighters, paramedics, military here and overseas and so forth DO end up at the wrong addresses in the course of business or duty now and then. Mistakes happen in all the professions. I don't think the military, police fire fighters and so forth intentionally try and blow their job.
The police, military, paramedics, fire fighters and so forth are hardly thugs for showing up at the door by accident while attempting to carry out the duties afforded them by the people.
You seem to want to criminalize all but the real criminals. I don't know if you are one of those rabid pro-illegal drug defenders and if this is what drives you to go after law enforcement, but it seems so.
If you are one of those strange people who want to legalize the recreational drugs, then that motive I think you have for going after cops and your attitude would be wrong.
"Further, the grave damage done by the war on some drugs and the so-called USA-PATRIOT act to our Constitution demonstrate that the government (at ANY level) is NOT FIT to have such powers and never WILL be. You can say what you want about my views and “agenda,” but I mean to see the Constitution restored to its rightful place, even if it means that the likes of YOU get to have your freedom to be a jackass restored at the same time."
The losers who at times help finance terror, at times kill, bring down our country and destroy families due to recreational drug use are the ones who should do us all a favor and drop dead or leave the country.
Though there are more reasons to go through a door with a warrant then just getting dealers, it would be a fine thing if those that cause the market for the real thugs would all just do the country a favor and drop dead.
"Beyond that, I could care less about your “opinion,” thanks so much.
From what I remember, you have little tolerance for anyone who doesn't post back to you in total agreement. Not a problem, I am sure the extreme minority you find that do that will keep you happy here and there.
Enjoy your day.
One hardly knows where to begin with you. First, when serving a warrant, it is always best that the cops HAVE IT WITH THEM. Next step, ensure that you are at the right door. NO MISTAKES of that nature are tolerable in a free society. None whatsoever. Recall that our justice system was set up to, if needs be, allow 100 guilty to go free rather than imprison or injure ONE SINGLE innocent person. (That you don’t approve of this maxim speaks volumes about YOU.) If the cops do not follow procedure, it is properly a CRIMINAL matter. Oh, and we are not talking about the freelance criminals here, the muggers, rapists, burglars, etc. This thread is about the OFFICIAL criminals, the goons with badges. Your defense of the indefensible is ludicrous in the extreme.
I notice that you persist in lumping the military in with these goons in blue, as if government making war on its own citizens is OK by you. That’s another bit of sick twistedness I have long noticed in you. I will ignore the rest of your diatribe, as my stomach’s been doing poorly of late and I don’t want to stress it too much with your big government bilgewash.
If a cop cares at all about whether he's actually raiding the right house, he should look at the warrant to check the address. Even if the cop knows which house is the right one, he should still check the warrant to ensure it was typed up correctly. A warrant for 744 Evergreen Terrace will not be valid for 742 Evergreen Terrace, even if the warrant application had asked for 742.
To make a "good faith effort" at something, one must at least try to exercise reasonable care in doing it. Reasonable care in serving a warrant requires examining it; such requirement is sufficiently obvious that anyone who is even trying to exercise care in serving a warrant will examine it first. Anyone who doesn't do so isn't even trying to be careful.
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.