Posted on 02/18/2015 6:42:04 AM PST by BobNative
"HB 56 is a bill designed to white-wash decades of judicial activism that enabled LEO to obtain and execute illegal search warrants, which are referred to as “no-knock warrants” in the common environment. HB 56 is a whitewash because it actually amends current law to define “no-knock warrants” where no such term currently appears, and it obliterates the existing law (OCGA 17-5-27) that prohibits warrants that allow no verbal announcement from LEO before they breach a door."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalvine.com ...
In before some Pro-Dopers try and make these abuses about the “War on Drugs” instead of just plain old government arrogance and overreach.
Police State thuggery.
Cases in which no-knock warrants are appropriate are extremely rare, if they exist at all. The vast majority of such searches are dangerously unconstitutional and unnecessarily hazardous to police and to private citizens.
“No, Sheriff of Habersham County. YOU and your asset forfeiture-hungry LEOs caused that “bad thing to happen.”
Well the article has some salient points about the proposed new legislation and I am going to contact my state rep about it.
But: We need to stick to the truth here. The truth is that the 6 SWAT guys who no knocked that house in Habersham county did not work for the Habersham County Sheriff. They had been co-opted before the new sheriff took over by the County DA and were working directly for him under a federally funded district drug interdiction task force comprised of several counties. The Habersham County sheriff did not even know the raid was going to happen. He got scapegoated for it though.
Since the raid and subsequent chitstorm the drug interdiction task force has been disbanded, the DA is under investigation and I have heard that the cop who threw the flash grenade left for parts unknown and the other five have been merged back into the the sheriff’s dept.
The association is noted in the article itself:
Consider the case in Habersham County in mid-2014: A petty criminal acting as an informant to the Habersham Sheriff’s office claimed that he had purchased drugs from the occupant living at the house. A “tip” from one crook is enough “probable cause” for a SWAT team to be armed to the gills and get a no-knock warrant to raid a house? Really? Why the f*** are cops now relying on ONE CROOK’S word that illicit activities are occurring at a house in order to justify their acts?
Were drugs found? Nope. Was someone harmed who didn’t have a gun and body armor? Yep, an 18-month old baby sleeping in a crib in the house.
Why would cops just take the word of a crook? A person who kinda…sorta…has a record of being deceptive? Because, this is what very likely went on in the mind of the lead drug investigator when he got this “tip”: “Drug dealer?….Money…lots of money…Drug dealers have lots of cash on them….we can hit that house, get evidence of the drugs…and confiscate under asset forfeiture ALL the money and property in that house. Let’s get that judge to sign-off on the no-knock so we can ALL have a pay-day in this county!!!”
And, how do I have any inkling as to what went thru that guy’s mind (along with his direct report’s mind)? Because of the extremely callous nature of the Habersham County’s Sheriff who uttered these words in relation to incident: “Bad things can happen. That’s just the world we live in.”
[...] Then, there’s the incident in Laurens County in late 2014 that involved the killing of an innocent homeowner named David Hooks. Here’s the short synopsis of that incident: A thief (yes, another crook) picked-up by Laurens County LE for stealing from David Hooks told the cops that a car that he stole from Hooks had a bag containing 22 grams of meth in it…thus implying that Hooks was involved in drug distribution.
Did the Laurens County cops think “Hmmm…maybe we need to stake this guy’s house out and see if we can catch him in the act?” NOPE! They get a no-knock warrant, suit-up in their fancy-dancy federally-issued SWAT toy attire and proceed to raid the house, and kill David Hooks. You can read the fuller story on this link, but the fact of the matter is, as was reported in multiple news sources, no drugs, not even a nanogram (a billionth of a gram) was found in Hooks’ house after the cops murdered him.
Even the GBI came on that scene and helped searched the house…and not a trace of drugs was found.
In stories you can find on the Web about this incident in Laurens County, they remark how successful a businessman David Hooks was. My contention is that the Laurens County cops knew exactly who David Hooks was, and exactly how wealthy he was…and that the following is very similar to what went thru the mind of that Sheriff (and his fellow LEOs) to justify his department’s acts in getting the illegal (according to Georgia law now) no-knock warrant: “Rich guy….really rich mother-f***er…we can get ALL his assets, his house, his bank accounts, his cash in the house…rich guys like that always have money in their houses….he’s likely got a safe with thousands of dollars in it..that’s going to be OUR money! Let’s raid this f*cker’s house and get OUR PAY DAY!!!”
Because, if they had found ANY drug in that house, by way of asset forfeiture laws in this state, all of David Hooks’ property and bank accounts could be tied to “drug distribution” and all would have ALL become the Sheriff’s own Pirate Booty. To use in any manner he (and his other county pals…the DA…the judges…the county commission…whatever and whoever he wanted to share it with) decided.
And of course the arrogance and overreach of the IRS, the EPA, and the TSA are all the fault of drugs too.
I haven't seen any stories of them doing no-knock raids, which is the topic of this thread.
” In before some Pro-Dopers try and make these abuses about the “War on Drugs” instead of just plain old government arrogance and overreach.”
LOL! Good shot, DL.
Personally, I've noticed that the loudest voices in favor of the war on drugs seem to be profiting the most from it.
Just so with people like you who don't bother to grasp the point being made by my comment.
The ENTIRE federal government is abusive. You people want to single out just those aspects that touch on drugs because your real agenda is to undermine the interdiction of drugs.
You only care about federal abuses which interfere with your weed smoking.
Personally, I've noticed that the loudest voices in favor of the war on drugs seem to be profiting the most from it.
I don't work in law enforcement, I don't have anything whatsoever to do with the "war on drugs" I make absolutely no money from it, and never have.
And now here you come along like a little weeny and impugn the motives of people who are opposed to drug addiction spreading through our society. Not really surprised that was the best you could do. Most Libertarian arguments end up as ad hominem squabbles anyway.
As I said, the IRS, the EPA, and the TSA aren't doing no-knock raids (as far as I know).
*YOU* don’t get to decide the topic. We are not constrained by what *YOU* want the discussion to be about.
” Personally, I’ve noticed that the loudest voices in favor of the war on drugs seem to be profiting the most from it. “
LOL! God, you sound like Obama.
LOL! God, you sound like Obama.
Yeah. That's quite the comeback. Yawn.
The ENTIRE federal government is abusive. You people want to single out just those aspects that touch on drugs because your real agenda is to undermine the interdiction of drugs.
Actually not. I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. However, I call out Fedgov everywhere I see abuses, be it their snooping on us at every conceivable level, their abuse of environmental law, civil asset forfeiture, their constant attacks on the 2nd amendment, or any of the other endless overreaches of the Fedgov leviathan. The whole WOD thing comes up often because it is one of the most obvious and destructive of their efforts to subvert our Republic.
You only care about federal abuses which interfere with your weed smoking.
Yeah, noone against the WOD could ever be taking a principled stand against it. Only people with their mind addled with intoxicants could possibly be concerned about the abuses of our legal system employed on its behalf.
For the record, I don't do any drugs. I don't particularly like even taking aspirin. I drink the occasional quality beer, but not to the point that it will cause me to shoot at tax collectors - and miss.
You might want to rethink your notion that only druggies oppose the WOD. Some of us simply believe the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
As I said, the IRS, the EPA, and the TSA aren't doing no-knock raids (as far as I know).
*YOU* don’t get to decide the topic. We are not constrained by what *YOU* want the discussion to be about.
I'm not "deciding the topic" but pointing out that between the following abuses:
I find the latter to be clearly worse.
If you do indeed focus on other federal abuses and not just those involving the drug issue, then it is my turn to apologize to you. Most of the message traffic I deal with regarding federal abuses are from Libertarians upset that the feds enforce drug laws.
I am against abuses by government. I am against no knock raids and i'm against asset forfeiture without trial.
But I think it is absolutely necessary that no nation allow drug addiction to flourish in their society. We have the historical example of what legalized drugs did to China, and I regard allowing drugs as a grave and dire threat to the existence of our nation.
You might want to rethink your notion that only druggies oppose the WOD. Some of us simply believe the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
Given that the "disease" would be following the path of China, I would have to ask how much worse could the "cure" be? Complete totalitarian government and the enslavement of the populace. Yeah, that's where the disease led. Will the "cure" get us there faster? Maybe, but it looks pretty obvious to me that the "disease" will get us there for sure.
I'm sorry, but if they can't even keep drugs out of a socialist paradise like our prison system, where they have what one can only describe as a fairly depotic level of control, how do you expect them to keep them out of an allegedly free country? I just don't see how they can possibly come anywhere near close to attaining their "goals" and still maintain a free Republic. These laws and everything that derives from them are an anathema to a free people.
I am against abuses by government. I am against no knock raids and i'm against asset forfeiture without trial.
Both of those rather egregious abuses were only made possible by the war on drugs.
Personally, I'm doubtful that even full legalization would usher in an era like the Chinese example you mentioned. China had other rather systemic issues that exacerbated their resultant problems. I personally think a stronger example of the evils of the drug laws would be the immediate aftermath of prohibition. You don't see the local Budweiser and Shiner distributors getting into shootouts over their distribution channels. It is when you drive conflict resolution underground as a matter of state policy that you end up with the rampant crime and corruption associated with the vices.
We have murders. Murders have always been against the law. Despite all our efforts to prevent them we still have them. This is not an argument for legalizing murder. It is an argument for noting that sometimes the best we can do will still have areas of failure.
Optimization is not perfection. Sometimes the best possible methodology still has some level of loss.
Both of those rather egregious abuses were only made possible by the war on drugs.
I was thinking more along the lines of it being a problem with literacy. A bunch of Federal judges are apparently not well enough educated to read the fourth and fifth amendment. Perhaps they can't count that high? Given the various decisions i've been seeing from the federal judiciary lately, I would not find the idea so far fetched.
Personally, I'm doubtful that even full legalization would usher in an era like the Chinese example you mentioned. China had other rather systemic issues that exacerbated their resultant problems.
I see it as a serious enough threat that I won't hand wave it away. Suppose we did legalize and it did work out just like China? It would then be apparent that it was a horrible mistake to legalize, but it would also be too late.
I think the safer assumption is that people will behave like past people when exposed to similar conditions, and to believe otherwise would appear to me to be a great leap of faith. Who would want to take such a leap of faith?
In my experience pessimism and cynicism are usually the better predictors of what will happen when you engage in societal tampering.
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.