What's the problem with "no -knock" searches? They kill innocent people.

[shance]

What's the problem with 'no-knock' searches? They get people killed

Last week, we were asking how police found themselves in the bedroom of a naked couple in Lancaster, Calif., in 2001, guns drawn.

This led to a discussion of the problem with "no-knock" -- or even "shout-once-and-storm-in" -- search warrants.

On Nov. 21 of last year, Atlanta police planted marijuana on Fabian Sheats, a "suspected street dealer."

They told Sheats they would let him go if he "gave them something." Sheats obligingly lied that he had spotted a kilogram of cocaine nearby, giving them the address of the elderly spinster Miss Kathryn Johnston, who neither used nor dealt drugs, but who did live in fear of break-ins in her crime-infested neighborhood.

Police then lied to a judge, claiming they had actually purchased drugs at the Johnston house.

They acquired one of those once-rare "no-knock" warrants, and violently battered down the reinforced metal door of a private home where there were no drugs.

Miss Johnston fired a warning shot at the unknown people busting down her door.

That bullet lodged in the roof of her porch, injuring no one. Police replied by firing 39 rounds at her, hitting her five times, and wounding each other with another five rounds -- though they lied and said they'd been shot by Miss Johnston.

They then handcuffed the old woman as she bled to death on the floor and searched her house. Finding no drugs, they planted three bags of marijuana.

The next day, the cops picked up one Alex White, an informant, advising him that they needed him to lie, saying that he had purchased cocaine at Johnston's house.

White refused, managed to escape and went to the media with the story.

Last month, two of those officers pleaded guilty to manslaughter -- deals that helped them escape murder charges -- and now face more than 10 years in prison, after authorities demonstrated the officers lied to get their warrant.

Greg Jones of the Atlanta FBI office said at a news conference that the FBI is investigating "additional allegations of corruption that Atlanta police officers may have engaged in similar conduct."

Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard said he has started to review hundreds of other cases involving officers Jason Smith and Gregg Junnier; convictions may be overturned. Last week, Police Chief Richard Pennington transferred his entire narcotics squad to other duties, contending his department would review its policy on "no-knock" warrants and its use of confidential informants.

That "review" and seven bucks will get you a fancy cup of coffee at Starbucks.

More at:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7812557.html

[Captain Angry]

1. Have you seen this report?

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Kind of scary to see those kind of numbers.

[Kagemusha]

2. Thanks for posting. I wanted to know how that story turned out.

And like, wow, there's corrupt cops, and there's *corrupt cops*. Wow.

[shance]

6. You bet. With anything there are people who will take power and abuse it

to the fullest.

It is mind boggling to most of us, who are not inclined to act against others so viciously.

That is the reason why we have laws that are supposed to protect and defend us from such blatant, traumatizing, life altering (or diminishing) abuse and/or murder.

Unfortunately we have an Administration who apparently seems to want to allow and perhaps promote such abuse to happen to innocent citizens, perhaps in order to traumatize and frighten everyone into submission and a chronic state of fear.

If they didn't want this, then why do they continue to intentionally dismantle and overrule such Constitutional laws and protections which are basic in protecting EVERYBODY, including even those in law enforcement?

Nobody benefits from such "privatization" and buying off of the rule of law. Nobody.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Unfortunately, it's not just this administration.

The militarization of the police has been going on for close to 30 years. Remember the old TV show 'SWAT' from the 80s? Polish it up, make it look all cool - then 'Cops' in the 90s, to convince us that street crime was out of control, when actually it was in decline.

There's people out there with an agenda, and the no-knock is just one small part of it. (On that note, have you ever seen a no-knock go wrong in the movies?)

[shance]

14. Great points. Thanks.

n/t

[Kagemusha]

16. Depends on which movie

I'm not sure what I'm thinking of was a movie *per se* but, I have seen such things, yes - as mid-story tragedy setting the stage for heroic actions later. That's how drama works.

But seriously, even though militarization of the police - and I have read about the subject and I very much note your concerns - this is not, as I see it, some kind of good-faith accident. This is deep, deep corruption and it is the corruption which produced the fatality and all that flowed from it, not some sort of... random fluke. Well, IMHO obviously. And this is not to say militarization is not the backdrop that enabled the corruption. It is - it's just where the story starts, not where it ended. Again IMHO.

[ellisonz]

3. They are immoral.

I took a course with the dean of faculty at my college in "Judgment" and the question of no knock-warrants was the first issue we dealt with. The decision in support of them is a joke and of course was authored by Scalia. The professor of course defended the decision vigorously as constitutional and practical when nothing could be further from the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_vs._michigan

" (c) The social costs to be weighed against deterrence are considerable here. In addition to the grave adverse consequence that excluding relevant incriminating evidence always entails--the risk of releasing dangerous criminals--imposing such a massive remedy would generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support. Another consequence would be police officers' refraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing, producing preventable violence against the officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in others. Next to these social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is "reasonable suspicion" that they exist, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394. Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson's argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Pp. 8-13."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1360

What rubbish.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Is your Dean a member of the Federalist Society?

[ellisonz]

10. He wishes.

Really, he's just trapped in an ivory tower (my school is incredibly liberal, although less Marxist than in the days of old). I think the reason this shit has gone on for so long is because so many people are willfully blind to the horrific effect the perpetual "War on Drugs" has had, because drugs are bad don't you know. This government sat idly by while Mexican importations of pseudophedrine from Mexico tripled.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/updmexico.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-meth17mar17,0,1273848,full.story

Crank up the drug supply and the people will be so zonked out they don't care what we do...:sarcasm:

[KG]

4. time to stop hiring stupid people to enforce stupid laws.

the 'war on drugs' is a sham and scam.

[shance]

12. I think its also time to confront the racism and misogyny in law enforcement.

It's a big problem and it allows the abuse to continue and to perpetuate into such situations like the ones mentioned in the article.

[DemGa]

5. We must face the fact that we are not safe in our homes

from police attackers.

[shance]

9. I would say I think its time to start participating more in our neighborhoods as caring citizens

and start better connecting and building relationships with the thousands of terrific law enforcement officers out there who are good people who got into their line of work because they want to do the right thing.

Also, I believe we need more of a diversified law enforcement (of both genders and nationalities and cultural backgrounds) who are able to live in our communities so they actually know who we are and become our neighbors and friends. Driving around in a squad car doesn't do much in building relationships in the communities where they work.

The more we participate in our communities and build relationships in our neighborhoods, local businesses and neighborhoods, the less isolated everyone becomes, the more people become personally invested in knowing others and the less crime and assaults can and will be permitted and allowed to occur.

Just my three cents.

Our power and our community is local. That is what we need in my opinion to be focusing more on.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Reminds me of COPS on FOX

[Kagemusha]

11. I was thinking more along the lines of The Shield, myself.

In real life.

[krispos42]

15. Popular Mechanics had an article about this...

SWAT Overkill: The Danger of a Paramilitary Police Force

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Published on: November 28, 2006

SOLDIERS AND POLICE are supposed to be different. Soldiers are aimed at enemies from outside the country. They are trained to kill those enemies, and their supporters. In fact, “killing people and breaking things” are their main reasons for existence.

Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians. The trend toward militarizing police began in the ’60s and ’70s when standoffs with the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the University of Texas bell tower gunman Charles Whitman convinced many police departments that they needed more than .38 specials to deal with unusual, high-intensity threats. In 1965 Los Angeles inspector Daryl Gates, who later became police chief, signed off on the formation of a specially trained and equipped unit that he wanted to call the Special Weapons Attack Team. (The name was changed to the more palatable Special Weapons and Tactics). SWAT programs soon expanded beyond big cities with gang problems.

Abetting this trend was the federal government’s willingness to make surplus military equipment available to police and sheriffs’ departments. All sorts of hardware is available, from M-16s to body armor to armored personnel carriers and even helicopters. Lots of police departments grabbed the gear and started SWAT teams, even if they had no real need for them. The materiel was free, and it was fun. I don’t blame the police. Heck, if somebody gave me a Bradley Fighting Vehicle to play with, I’d probably start a SWAT team, too—so long as I didn’t have to foot the maintenance bill.

<more>