Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RCSO Raids Wrong House
WJBF ^ | October 12, 2012 | WJBF

Posted on 10/18/2012 12:54:46 PM PDT by Altariel

Investigators with the Richmond County Sheriff?s Office say they accidently served a search warrant on the wrong house, while looking for a suspected drug dealer in Burke County.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; georgia; wronghouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Another. Isolated. Incident.

Video at link

1 posted on 10/18/2012 12:54:50 PM PDT by Altariel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Any word on the dog ?


2 posted on 10/18/2012 12:56:53 PM PDT by maine yankee (I got my Governor at 'Marden's')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Someone needs to give these LEAs some phone books.


3 posted on 10/18/2012 1:00:50 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

That would work if the problem were truly ignorance.


4 posted on 10/18/2012 1:08:15 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

Augusta, G.A. —

Investigators with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office say they accidently served a search warrant on the wrong house, while looking for a suspected drug dealer in Burke County. WJBF News Channel 6 is the only station to talk with the victim.

Susan Treat says she was standing, in her laundry room, just feet from her backdoor, when Richmond and Burke County Sheriff’s officers, burst through that door, looking for a suspected drug dealer.

Treat says she thought her family’s lives were in danger, she thought the officers were there to help, but she knew that wasn’t the case, when she says at, gun point, the police ordered her, her pregnant daughter, and her 3 year old granddaughter, to get on the floor.

“Two officers were standing over the top of me with guns.” says Treat.

She says the officers searched her house for almost an hour, she says cussing, and calling her a liar, before realizing they had the wrong address. The house they were looking for was two doors down.

“I’ve never done anything wrong. I’ve had one speeding ticket in my life.”

She says now days after the raid, she is having trouble sleeping, and her granddaughter is having nightmares. Even worse she says, NO ONE has even apologized.

“I stood here, in my own home, this is my safe place, this is my granddaughter’s safe place, and my daughter’s, and all at once when they bust in, they take that away.” says Treat.

We went to the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office to get an explanation, of how officers didn’t notice they were going in house 133 not 173. They told us, mistakes happen. But we asked if the accidental search broke the law.

Lieutenant Partain of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office says, “I don’t know if we broke the law, obviously our legal people have to explain that to us.”

Reporter Brett Buffington asks, “You did raid a house with no warrant, though.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “We raided a house with a warrant. We did go to the wrong house.”

Reporter Brett Buffington again asks, “You did raid a house with no warrant.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “We raided a house, we did go there with a warrant, and we did raid the wrong house.”

Reporter Brett Buffington says, “You raided a house with no warrant, you didn’t have a warrant to this house.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “That is true, that is true, that is true.”

The lieutenant says he’s sorry for the mistake, and so are the officers who entered the house. He says the case is under review, to try and stop this from happening again.

Treat says, “How do you know that these guys aren’t going to make a mistake again, and do the same thing all over again to someone else.”

The case is still under investigation by the Richmond County’s Sheriff’s Office’s Internal Affairs division. Count On WJBF News Channel 6 to continue to track this story.

http://www2.wjbf.com/news/2012/oct/12/richmond-county-sheriffs-investigators-raid-wrong-ar-4742125/


5 posted on 10/18/2012 1:09:55 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

OK, if I were to ever become police chief, new rule; double check your warrants with google maps or suspension without pay.


6 posted on 10/18/2012 1:10:20 PM PDT by caldera599
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: caldera599

If the problem were “oops, we accidentally raided the wrong house”, they would have started doing that a long time ago.

The problem is worse.

The problem is “Let’s raid Mr. X’s residence and claim it was an error.”

That is why we see it repeated over, and over, and over across the land.

It’s not repeated mistakes.

It’s repeated planned targets, watching to see how Americans react.


7 posted on 10/18/2012 1:13:59 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Another. Isolated. Incident.

Since you're being sarcastic and trying to blow the problem out of proportion, what percentage of raids occur at the wrong address?

8 posted on 10/18/2012 1:16:15 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

SWAT bust down wrong door
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w


9 posted on 10/18/2012 1:17:08 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine yankee

10 posted on 10/18/2012 1:17:53 PM PDT by Bon mots (Abu Ghraib: 47 Times on the front page of the NY Times | Benghazi: 2 Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maine yankee

I was going to ask the same thing. LOL.


11 posted on 10/18/2012 1:18:56 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The real question is: how many police lieutenants truly believe “we have a warrant” entitles them to intrude on a U.S. Citizen’s residence, even if it is *not* the residence specified on the warrant.

****

Lieutenant Partain of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office says, “I don’t know if we broke the law, obviously our legal people have to explain that to us.”

Reporter Brett Buffington asks, “You did raid a house with no warrant, though.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “We raided a house with a warrant. We did go to the wrong house.”

Reporter Brett Buffington again asks, “You did raid a house with no warrant.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “We raided a house, we did go there with a warrant, and we did raid the wrong house.”

Reporter Brett Buffington says, “You raided a house with no warrant, you didn’t have a warrant to this house.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “That is true, that is true, that is true.”


12 posted on 10/18/2012 1:20:23 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

You would think they would want to avoid the inevitable law suits by doing the most basic police footwork that even a grade schooler could manage with an iPad.


13 posted on 10/18/2012 1:21:58 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Why would they want to avoid the lawsuits? When is the last time police officers were *personally* sued after conducting one of these raids?

If the *department* is sued, it’s the *taxpayers* who pay. Every time one of these raids are conducted, you and I, and the other Freepers, pay the bill.


14 posted on 10/18/2012 1:24:37 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Seem to be happening a lot these days. A big part of the problem is that law enforcement has somehow gotten the ability to bust into people's houses without knocking. Imagine if, instead, they knocked on this lady's door. "Who is it". "Police, we have a warrant to search. Open the door." She opens the door and is given the warrant. "Officer, you have the wrong house. This is no. 133."

"Uh, uhm, uh.....sorry Ma'am. Have a good day." And off they go the the correct house.

I understand that in some severe situations they may need to burst in without a knock, but that ought to be extremely rare, instead of common, like it seems to be now. We have lost control of the niceties of civilization, and if we want to remain free, we have to regain control of them and the fascists who argue agains them.

15 posted on 10/18/2012 1:25:40 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Reporter Brett Buffington says, “You raided a house with no warrant, you didn’t have a warrant to this house.”

Lieutenant Partain says, “That is true, that is true, that is true.”

If that is not a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment then I don't know what is.

All I can say is I await the results of this coming election to see if the American people vote for the rule of law or for its sunset. If it is the latter then this is the flag I will fly...


16 posted on 10/18/2012 1:31:18 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
A big part of the problem is that law enforcement has somehow gotten the ability to bust into people's houses without knocking.

The justification for "no knock" warrants go back to English common law.

17 posted on 10/18/2012 1:38:04 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
The real question is:

The real question you didn't answer. May I assume you'll stop exaggerating and being sarcastic?

18 posted on 10/18/2012 1:39:15 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
The justification for "no knock" warrants go back to English common law.

I see one vote against the 4th Amendment which held strong in this regard until the 1980s.

19 posted on 10/18/2012 1:57:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
...what percentage of raids occur at the wrong address?

I doubt any of us know but the percentage should be zero. Just because they can conduct no-knocks doesn't mean preparation and verification should be ignored.

20 posted on 10/18/2012 2:00:50 PM PDT by ken in texas (I was taught to respect my elders but it keeps getting harder to find any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

“The problem is “Let’s raid Mr. X’s residence and claim it was an error.””

==

Proof? There must be plenty since it is happening over and over.

.


21 posted on 10/18/2012 2:06:07 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: maine yankee

***** “Any word on the dog ?” *****

Also

Did they confiscate all of their guns?

TT


22 posted on 10/18/2012 2:09:31 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (Radical islam is islam. Moderate islam is the Trojan Horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas
Just because they can conduct no-knocks doesn't mean preparation and verification should be ignored.

I agree.

23 posted on 10/18/2012 2:21:15 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Right, but the ability to do it almost as a matter of course is more recent. Judges used to be more vigilant about civil liberties, and police more respectful of them. Look what jerks these cops were to this lady, a citizen and a taxpayer. If that attitude was rare, I would say it was one bad experience. It seems rare that they are NOT like that.


24 posted on 10/18/2012 2:46:42 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Lieutenant Partain of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office says, “I don’t know if we broke the law, obviously our legal people have to explain that to us.”

Now we need cops for the cops? Maybe their "legal people" should have been consulted first.

25 posted on 10/18/2012 3:29:58 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Teach a man to fish and you lose a Democratic voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Judges used to be more vigilant about civil liberties, and police more respectful of them.

Do you have any evidence of that? Any statistics to share? How can the problem be solved if it isn't properly defined?

Look what jerks these cops were to this lady, a citizen and a taxpayer.

Apparently they were, but what proportion of warrants are improperly executed like this one? What can the below average police departments learn from the good ones?

26 posted on 10/18/2012 4:11:16 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The percentage is immaterial. An unconstitutional raid is not excusable on basis of percentage.

Are you willing to denounce this unconstitutional raid?


27 posted on 10/18/2012 7:08:32 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A constitutional problem will not be solved by determining the statistical percentage of constitutional violations.


28 posted on 10/18/2012 7:10:45 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A constitutional problem will not be solved by determining the statistical percentage of constitutional violations.


29 posted on 10/18/2012 7:12:03 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The Constitution is the law of the land.

This raid was a blatant fourth amendment violation.


30 posted on 10/18/2012 7:13:58 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Every single “wrong” house that has been raided.

Especially those “wrong” houses which have been *repeatedly* raided.

Oddly enough, the pizza delivery man, the UPS man, and the water meter reader manage to all do their jobs without intruding on the wrong residence.

When members of a particular occupation fail, repeatedly, *nationwide* to accomplish the task a minimum-wage worker can accomplish, the problem is not incompetence but *willingness* to raid Mr. X’s residence.


31 posted on 10/18/2012 7:17:04 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Every single “wrong” house that has been raided.

Especially those “wrong” houses which have been *repeatedly* raided.

Oddly enough, the pizza delivery man, the UPS man, and the water meter reader manage to all do their jobs without intruding on the wrong residence.

When members of a particular occupation fail, repeatedly, *nationwide* to accomplish the task a minimum-wage worker can accomplish, the problem is not incompetence but *willingness* to raid Mr. X’s residence.


32 posted on 10/18/2012 7:18:20 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Indeed, it’s very disturbing that the Lieutenant expected “we have a warrant” to even cover raiding a residence not on the warrant.

At least the reporter held his feet to the fire on that score.


33 posted on 10/18/2012 7:23:34 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

I was surprised at the reporter’s persistence. We need more of that.


34 posted on 10/18/2012 7:26:55 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
The percentage is immaterial.

It's material to your sarcastic and exaggerated statement, and you still won't answer the question.

35 posted on 10/18/2012 8:46:38 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
This raid was a blatant fourth amendment violation.

It would be if it were intentional. And I believe if they had found any evidence of crime it would have to be thrown out.

From a civil standpoint the lady can sue for damages, but that's not a constitutional issue.

36 posted on 10/18/2012 8:50:40 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

No, it’s not material to the phrase “Another isolated incident”.

What is material to the discussion is the unconstitutionality of all the “wrong house” raids.

What is material to the discussion is the clear failure of a number of police departments to immediately fire all individuals involved in “wrong house” raids.

What is material to the discussion is the police lieutenant’s repeated attempt to claim that the presence of the warrant “warranted” this raid.


37 posted on 10/18/2012 9:05:33 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“It would be if it were intentional”

Given the repeated attempts of the lieutenant to justify this raid because they had a warrant for another address, and the fact that the lady’s house was the residence intruded, the raid was very much intentional.

Claiming that such a raid is “not intentional” is misinformation. The moment the residence was intruded the officers revealed their *intention* to unconstutionally violate the lady’s rights.

What’s next? Will you justify the average burglar if the burglar claims he thought he was entering a different residence?


38 posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:50 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
What is material to the discussion is the unconstitutionality of all the “wrong house” raids.

How many have led to a constitutional case?

39 posted on 10/18/2012 9:20:26 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
Oddly enough, the pizza delivery man, the UPS man, and the water meter reader manage to all do their jobs without intruding on the wrong residence.

1. When the pizza man delivers to the wrong residence, it costs the pizza man money. When a cop breaks on the wrong door, knocks down grandma and shoots the dog, he gets a paid vacation.

2. If the pizza man puts his boot on an innocent customer's neck and calls him a lying scumbag, he loses his job and goes to jail. A cop laughs about it with his buddies and they go have a beer.

3. When a pizza man delivers a pizza, only one guy delivers the pizza, and he knocks at the front door. Cops need a dozen people to deliver, and they smash all the doors and throw flash bang grenades in the windows.

4. A pizza man can read a street address behind a bush, on a dirty house under a new moon...but a cop can't read the address on a search warrant even with a 500,000 candlepower titanium flashlight with a base designed to crush skulls.

5. When a pizza guy shows up at your house, he's required to be courteous, in uniform and carrying your order. When police people arrive at your door, they're allowed to look like street people or ninjas, carry automatic weapons and shotguns, and press them to your mama's head, saying drop to your knees b*tch or I'll blow your f*ck*ng brains all over the room.

6. When the pizza man makes a delivery, he sometimes carries milk bones in case the owners have dogs. When a cop comes to your house, he sometimes carries extra magazines with hollowpoints in case the owners have dogs.

7. You feel safe letting your child answer the door when the pizza man drives up.

40 posted on 10/18/2012 9:57:08 PM PDT by Tuanedge (The buffalo hates the tiger, but the tiger loves the buffalo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: IncPen

ping


41 posted on 10/18/2012 10:02:33 PM PDT by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tuanedge

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120929/lincoln-square/woman-raped-by-teen-pizza-deliveryman-on-uws


42 posted on 10/19/2012 1:30:31 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mears
National Police Misconduct Newsfeed Daily Recap
43 posted on 10/19/2012 3:00:35 PM PDT by Tuanedge (The buffalo hates the tiger, but the tiger loves the buffalo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tuanedge

Great link.It averages about 10 reports of police misconduct per day.That’s 3500 per year.

The other approximately 750,000 LEOs in the U.S.A. must be so ashamed.

I was particularly dismayed at the N.H. officer who was arrested for DUI. He got drunk off duty in his own car. Terrifying. I knew an accountant who did that once.

.


44 posted on 10/19/2012 3:29:16 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mears

I have the feeling that if an officer used babies’ skulls to brick his basement, he’d want you to be his judge.

Flattering that you follow me from one thread to another the way you do, Your Honor.


45 posted on 10/19/2012 4:14:44 PM PDT by Tuanedge (The buffalo hates the tiger, but the tiger loves the buffalo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tuanedge

I wasn’t following you,I was following a topic which has run it’s course.

Have a great weekend.

.


46 posted on 10/19/2012 7:40:20 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The constitutionality of the actions of a government employee is not determined by “how many have led to a Constitutional case”.

It is determined by that which is written in the document itself.


47 posted on 10/19/2012 9:40:01 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Altariel
The constitutionality of the actions of a government employee is not determined by “how many have led to a Constitutional case”.

It is determined by that which is written in the document itself.

In other words, this is yet another question you can't answer, because you can't come up with a single case.

Of all the liberal law groups out there that are willing to jump on any case pro bono that involves the cops and has a chance to make it to the Supreme Court, you can't come up with a single one.

48 posted on 10/19/2012 10:18:48 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

In other words, one does not look to whether one government employee investigates the behavior of another government employee to determine if the latter’s actions were constitutional.

One looks to the Constitution itself.

One can also look to Robert Peel’s nine principles for policing to determine whether such conduct is within the limited bounds established by said principles. Who better, after all, to inform the public of the principles to which the police must abide better than the Father of Modern Policing?

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

It seems rather clear that Robert Peel would not be scrambling to defend their actions by trying to chase a rabbit trail or two.


49 posted on 10/19/2012 10:29:08 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

I would rather base my beliefs on a formal court system that acts professionally rather than someone who uses exaggerations, sarcasm, and insults to support his opinions.


50 posted on 10/19/2012 10:58:34 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson