TX:Gun owner targeted with 'no-knock' raid

WND ^ | 22 June, 2013 | Bob Unruh

[marktwain]

A Texas citizen is asking a state appeals court to decide whether police are justified in launching a no-knock raid on a home they want to search simply because they believe there is a gun inside.

(snip)

“Here, the police based their no-knock entry solely upon their suspicion that the occupants of the residence may have been in possession of a rifle,” the appeal explains. “That the suspected possession of weapons was the only ‘justification’ for use of a no-knock entry in this case is undisputed.”

[marktwain]

Can exercise of a Constitutional right be reason for abrogation of another Constitutional right?

I do not think so.

[jsanders2001]

I think there are probably a few details left ou.

[piroque]

But with a little sarcasm / the zero and AG say it ok.

[Ouderkirk]

Isn’t the purpose of owning a firearm: To give a citizen the means to resist.

A warrant is only valid if there is compelling evidence that the person in question has actually committed a crime, not a fishing expedition to gather evidence that they have committed a crime.

The use of these no-knock warrants is to terrorize the rest of us.

[Principled]

“Whatever the issue might be, whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials,”

Say whatever about WND - this quote is good.

[FreedomStar3028]

Is there a law against owning rifles in Texas now? If so, I didn’t realize, I thought Texas would be last to take up ANY type of weapon ban laws.

Is the guy a felon? Is being a felon justification for no knock warrant? What if someone called the cops and said this guy is a felon, and he has a rifle?

[basil]

Yes—a few details were left out—like—where did this happen? TX is a pretty big state——also, what was their “legal” reason for taking the rifle? Does the guy have a record? Has he been deemed a danger to himself or others?

[Ouderkirk]

Tagline update

[microgood]

No knock searches are an abomination and should not be legal at all in this country. They are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, regardless of what the Supreme Court has ruled (they actually have ruled it is a violation of the 4th Amendment, but that it is OK nevertheless).

[Carriage Hill]

Hard to believe this is in TX; NY, IL, MA, NJ, MD, CA, etc yes. TX is getting bluer and bluer in some areas.

[Ben Ficklin]

"a few details were left out"

A quickie search reveals details but since this is an old case it is difficult in determining outcomes. The location was McKinney, north of Dallas.

Nasty divorce, custody issues, daughter rape, lawsuits over those issues.

Then the raid over the gun. drug possession. son's drug manufacturing.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If they had probable cause to believe a crime was being committed by keeping the rifle, technically a warrant could be issued, but it is only one more symptom of the flouting of the 2nd Amendment. Per the 2nd Amendment, any weapon which can be used for defense (keeping security) ought to be able to be fielded by any person or people who are competent and capable. The “well regulated” part of that amendment doesn’t mean riddled with restrictions, it means in modern language “well drilled.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

Per the 2nd Amendment, any weapon which can be used for defense (keeping security) ought to be able to be fielded by any person or people who are competent and capable. [Well... and of course not proven to be a criminal]

[deport]

Here is the petition filed with the court giving the basis of the filing:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/citing_2nd_4th_amendments_rutherford_institute_asks_texas_appeals_court_to

From the following website who is participating in the filing:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/citing_2nd_4th_amendments_rutherford_institute_asks_texas_appeals_court_to

Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a petition for appeal with the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, which involves
a Texas resident, John Quinn, whose home was stormed by a SWAT team that failed to knock
and announce its entry in keeping with police protocol for non-violent situations.
Although the SWAT team had been granted a search warrant on the basis of leads provided by
informants that Quinn’s son may have been involved in drug activity, the warrant did not
authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry.
Nevertheless, based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn
household, the SWAT team forcibly broke into Quinn’s home after he had gone to bed
and proceeded to carry out a search of the premises. The raid resulted in police
finding less than one gram of cocaine, which Quinn was charged with possessing.
Lower courts rejected Quinn’s objection to the “no-knock” entry on the grounds that
because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were
justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.

Although established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates that police officers
entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose
before attempting a forcible entry, police may disregard the knock and announce
rule under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence or a danger that
evidence will be destroyed. In their petition to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rutherford
Institute attorneys argue that in the absence of any evidence of actual danger
to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is
not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s
protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.
Affiliate attorney James A. Pikl of Scheef & Stone, LLP, in Frisco, Texas, is assisting
the Institute in defending the rights of Quinn.

[NonValueAdded]

From the article, the warrant was issued based upon informant info about the son’s drug activity. So the issue is really that the suspicion of an AK-47 in the home should or should not be sufficient grounds for a “no-knock” flavor to the warrant.

[rawcatslyentist]

He’s lucky the didn’t burn him alive. The feds do that to Texans.

[deport]

Link to pdf papers of the filing:

https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/06-18-13_Quinn_Petition.pdf

[Girlene]

"Although the SWAT team had been granted a search warrant on the basis of leads provided by informants that Quinn’s son may have been involved in drug activity, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry.”

So the SWAT team had a warrant, just not a no-knock warrant (do they issue those?), but they decided to go no-knock because they thought there might be an AK-47 inside.....or that was there excuse after the fact for doing it as a no-knock. Is that what this article is saying?

[basil]

Thanks for the details.

Is it just me, or does it seem that many times these catchy headlines like “No Knock raid” end up being about some skanky people who have broken many laws, and can be a danger to themselves and others——

[rktman]

The last paragraph (below) is almost laughable. “Weapons experts”? Seriously? I remember watching an episode of “Cops” a while back and one LA’s finest said a round from an AK-47 could take down a telephone poll. Additionally, it most likely wasn’t an “AK-47” but probably some variant of it. Didn’t see any details in the article to confirm that. What else was there in the guys background that may have contributed to the no knock? Typical(not “clever”) that so many are mislead by the msm and mares against ill-eagle guns propaganda about weapons in general.

“The police, being weapons experts, obviously knew this – but testified about the ‘dangerous’ nature of this particular gun because they knew the jury would have heard of it in the media and would know about its mystique as the weapon of choice for terrorists around the world. Clever, but misleading.”