It's worse than that:
A citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is cause for the government to violate that citizen's right under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
Posted on 09/27/2002 8:21:28 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Claim of gun in house justified police search, high court rules
BY MICHAEL ROWETT
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
The alleged presence of a handgun in a Conway woman’s home during drug deals justified an unannounced police search of the home, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday, reversing the state Court of Appeals.
The high court agreed with Faulkner County Circuit Judge David Reynolds’ denial of a motion by Kisha Ilo to suppress drug evidence obtained in the search.
Ilo argued that police should have knocked and announced their presence before forcibly entering her residence.
She pleaded guilty to charges of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia and maintaining a drug premises. Her plea was conditioned on her right to appeal Reynolds’ denial of the motion to suppress. Ilo was sentenced to six years in prison on each of the three charges.
Conway police obtained and executed a search warrant on Ilo’s residence Jan. 19, 2000. The affidavit in support of the search warrant said surveillance of Ilo’s home showed heavy traffic to the house for short periods of time, many visitors entering the house and staying only two or three minutes before leaving. These circumstances were consistent with the sale of narcotics, the affidavit said.
Also, the affidavit said, a vehicle that stopped at Ilo’s home was pulled over by police for a motor vehicle equipment violation, and a search of the car, to which the occupants consented, found a quarter-pound of marijuana.
According to the affidavit, one of the occupants of the car, George Weatherly, told the officers that he had been buying marijuana at Ilo’s home for about a year and had seen a handgun there during the drug deals at least twice and as recently as two weeks before.
This formed the basis for the police argument that knocking and announcing their presence before entering Ilo’s residence to execute the search warrant could be dangerous.
At Ilo’s suppression hearing, Weatherly denied telling officers he had seen a firearm at Ilo’s home during the drug deals. The officers maintained that he had. Reynolds denied Ilo’s motion to suppress.
In its March 6 ruling in Ilo’s favor, the Court of Appeals found that "merely seeing a handgun at a residence two weeks earlier is too remote in time to predicate a fear that such a handgun will continue to be present and endanger officers, absent any other compelling facts to suggest otherwise."
The state appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. In a decision written by Justice Donald L. Corbin, the Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeals viewed the issue too narrowly.
"Specifically, the state argues that the evidence of the firearm’s presence two weeks earlier must be viewed together with the evidence that Weatherly saw a handgun on two separate occasions over the course of a year," Corbin wrote. "The state asserts that the totality of the evidence demonstrates an ongoing threat of potential danger. We agree with the state’s analysis."
This story was published Friday, September 27, 2002
BANG!
Honest.
Which may be a good thing. Nobody wants to stand up for the rights of those accused of drug trafficking whose homes are invaded with no-knock warrants, whose property is seized because it MIGHT be related to drug profits... maybe the gun people will stand up for their rights and get some sympathy.
Yeah, right.
It's worse than that:
A citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is cause for the government to violate that citizen's right under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.
Using the possible presence of a gun to justify a no-knock entry.
Like you, I don't have a problem with no-knock warrants, properly and legally executed, with the primary purpose being the safety of the officers.
It sets a precedent. And here in Illinois, you have to have a Firearms Owner ID card in order to buy a handgun. So presumably, merely having a FOID card would give police the "right" to get a no-knock warrant if ever they wanted to come visit you.
Wouldn't it be more correct to state "Using the possible presence of a gun in conjunction with possible illegal activity to justify a no-knock entry"?
The way you stated it seems to imply that the police are getting no-knocks on legal gun owners. Or, are you intentionally trying to stir things up?
Stay Safe Bert !!
Arkansas has a very athoritarian/liberal type of justice system that is hard on druggies.
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.