No-Knock Warrants

It’s 6 AM and a groggy Ken Wright is getting ready to start the day. Thinking about jumping in the shower, getting the coffee on, and wake the kids… Suddenly noise from outside draws his attention and he looks out the window. He sees dozens of black-clad, armored men swarming on his lawn and now someone is pounding on the front door.

As he starts down the stairs in his boxer shorts the front door shatters and the heavily armed men charge into the house pointing guns and shouting orders. They grab Wright, drag him from the home, throw him down in the front lawn and roughly handcuff him as the neighbors look on in horror.

Wright is placed into a police cruiser and then sees the black-clad figures with their guns and body armor dragging his three children aged 3, 9, and 11 out of the house screaming and crying. They too are locked in the police cruiser where Wright can at least talk to them and try to calm them down. The search of the house goes on for six hours as Wright and the children sit helplessly in the hot police cruiser wondering what it’s all about.

Is it the FBI raiding a suspected terrorist cell? The DEA busting a major cocaine smuggling ring? A local SWAT team searching for a murdered wife? No, it’s a team of agents from the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Inspector General (EDOIG) looking for evidence of student loan fraud.

This is not some far-fetched TV script or the delusional rantings of a kooky conspiracy theorist. These are the facts as reported by local Stockton, California media. Apparently the EDOIG agents were looking for evidence in an investigation of Wright’s estranged wife Michelle who does not currently reside in the home. It is not yet clear whether the EDOIG agents knew that Michelle Wright no longer lived there or that the children were in the home.

We have long been vocal in my strenuous objection to “No-Knock” and “Announce and Enter” search warrants. I believe they, and the paramilitary forces and tactics employed to serve them, are not only an affront to the Fourth Amendment, but are inherently dangerous to all concerned. Their use in certain types of cases dealing with drug gangs, kidnapping, murder, and terrorism might sometimes be justified, but their use in the vast majority of cases is simply unjustifiable. Military tactics employed in a case of student aid fraud – by an agency of federal bean-counters – goes well beyond unjustifiable and solidly into the realm of criminal.

We have previously raised concerns about the Department of Education, and various other bureaucratic agencies within the federal government, developing their own law enforcement agencies with full arrest powers and special assault forces. Over a year ago I raised an alarm after the EDOIG put out a request for bids to purchase 27 Remington 870, 12 gauge shotguns with 14 inch barrels and special, adjustable stocks. You can read that column by clicking here. The quote request included a brief statement explaining that such 14inch Remington 870s were the “only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.”

That statement raised even more questions. Specifically, why did the Department of Education have an “existing shotgun inventory” and “certified armor,” and why on earth would they have “combat training and protocol”?

Exploring those questions led to the startling revelation that Inspectors General for over two dozen federal agencies – from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs to NASA – have been authorized by Congress to seek law enforcement powers from the Attorney General without having to demonstrate any proof of need or ability. At this point it is not totally clear just how many of those IGs have taken advantage of the opportunity, but even just one is way too many − as demonstrated by the outrageous raid on Ken Wright’s home.

What if Wright had not realized that the people breaking down his front door were law enforcement? What if he had grabbed a gun to protect his home from the violent invaders? As I have previously reported, exactly that scenario played out in Tucson last month when Pima County Sherriff deputies raided the home of José Guerena. Guerena was shot some 60 times and died at the scene. The debacle is still under investigation. Similar tragedies are all too common with innocent victims, non-violent offenders, and officers paying with their lives.

How could anyone possibly justify placing Wright and his children’s lives – not to mention the lives of the EDOIG agents – in such jeopardy over allegations of fraudulent student loans?

The federal agent who swore out the warrant against Wrights home, the agents who executed it, and the judge who signed it should all face serious disciplinary action as should any agency or judge executing or issuing such warrants in such a cavalier and clearly reckless manner. Meanwhile, Congress needs to repeal the law authorizing law enforcement powers for bureaucracies. Federal thugs – as these agents proved themselves to be – have no business coming into our communities and crashing into people’s homes – regardless of the validity of the allegations.

not to mention the lives of the EDOIG agents

Of no concern whatsoever. As servants of the
people, these folks should be unarmed, in coat
tie and by twos serving the warrants. PERIOD!

...and if they don’t like it, find another job.

Fantastic, a bureaucratic police state. Has a
certain ring to it, but is it constitutional?

I love rhetorical questions. The older I get the
more I desire to be a benevolent tyrant full of
common sense, outrage, bold reality, and truth.

Rule yourselves well or suffer the tyrant.

The problem that has evolved over time is that the US has well over 50 federal police agencies, and many other departments fairly recently invested with police powers, though ancillary, at best, to their federal function.

The solution to this is *not* found on a case-by-case basis, but on legislating, at the federal level, a “reorganization and normalization” of federal police authority. This has several essential elements, and should be part of the future Tea Party and conservative platforms.

1) The centralization of federal police authority to a limited number of federal police agencies. The logical few are the FBI, the Federal Marshal Service, a Secret Service limited to its protective role with its current Treasury functions given to the FBI, and several others all of whom need police powers as their major role in the federal government. All other agencies, bureaucracies, and authorities must go through these agencies for any needed police enforcement activities.

2) The restoration of the Fourth through Eighth Amendments at all levels of government. APPLICABLE TO US CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS ONLY. This includes not just STRICT LIMITS on searches and seizures and STRICT requirements for search warrants based on probable cause (4th); more orderly indictment by grand jury, STRICT right to due process, and STRICT prohibition of self-incrimination (5th); STRICT right to have a fair and SPEEDY public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront accusers, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel (6th); a STRICT right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, especially involving ANY asset forfeitures greater than $5,000 (7th); and finally a STRICT prohibition excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment (8th).

Importantly, in this last bit, “cruel and unusual punishment” should also be taken to mean “gratuitous pain, suffering and anguish inflicted during pre-arrest detention, intimidation, especially of children, and to include unnecessary killing of animals, arrest, confiscation of property, and pre-bail or pre-trial confinement.”

3) A new federal law should strongly crack down on “Abusive and unlawful actions taken under the color of authority”, to strip immunity from those who perform abuses, attempt to hide such actions through intimidation or threat of witnesses, or alter or manipulate evidence or engage in perjury before a court.

The bottom line to all of this is to begin with, a downgrading of police authority in the US to just LEOs whose specific job is solely law enforcement, under very clear rules. Next is the return to the Bill of Rights abandoned under the pretext of the Patriot Act and associated legislation against terrorists and terrorism, but use almost exclusively against US citizens not involved with terrorism or terrorists.

In other words, no more saying that the Bill of Rights is suspended because it interferes with common police activities. It exists specifically to interfere with common police activities.

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.