Posted on 02/08/2019 6:00:19 AM PST by Max_850
They found marijuana And cocaine. They just didn’t find heroin.
“Ultimately, investigators found small amounts of marijuana and cocaine, but no heroin. They also found two 12-gauge shotguns, a 20-gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber rifle and a second rifle — but no 9mm handgun described in the warrant.”
As I recall he used both Hardy and Harding in the same press conference.
It has become clear the incident was *not* a wrong address incident.
The warrant has been made public. Only the Harding address was in it.
I suspect complacency and a lazy execution.
The person who did the "controlled buy" may have skipped crucial steps.
People do hundreds of these raids, and never encounter serious resistance.
There probably would not have been any resistance here, if the police had not broken down the door and shot the dog without any warning.
Take it up with Justice Clarence Thomas.
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
Well, the cops can’t prevent home invasion, so how are we supposed to protect ourselves?
https://abc13.com/5-shot-and-3-dead-after-home-invasion-in-east-houston/5097015/
But you’re not a cop making a mistake that could cost lives, especially innocent lives. That’s the huge difference. It’s one thing to accidentally give the wrong address to Dominos & the wrong address for a giant drug bust.
Oops wrong cite see Wilson v Arkansas 1995
FISA warrants and "dossiers" obtained by colluding with Russians come to mind.
What bothers me is the total lack of concern to make absolutely sure the information is correct before acting. This should have never happened period, this stuff is starting to happen far too often. Absolute and qualified immunity of both officers and judges needs to be abolished and a special prison where LEO can be safely incarcerated with other peers rather than the public needs to be built, it’s time... there is a need. They keep getting off because there is no safe place to incarcerate them.
James Comey anyone? Brennan, Powers, Rice, Strzok, Page et al? All they did was obtain a false warrant to subvert the election of the President of the United States!
“...Supreme Court case called Ker v. California, the court held that the Fourth Amendment “undoubtedly” included the right to have a police officer knock first.”
Then, the courts will turn around and give the police wiggle room to go around the amendment.
How many cases have you heard of people, who, being the target of a no-knock warrant, thought they were being raided by criminals and were killed in the act of self-defense?
Here was a couple who were never accused or convicted of gun violence being approached as if they were MS-13 members.
Sounds like the cops killed two people for NOTHING, no? Both INNOCENT? Wrong house AGAIN?
No one is disputing that. Justice Thomas didn’t either in his opinion in 1995.
What he did say was: “This is not to say, of course, that every entry must be preceded by an announcement. The Fourth Amendment’s flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests. As even petitioner concedes, the common-law principle of announcement was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances. See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 38 (1963) (plurality opinion) (”[I]t has been recognized from the early common law that . . . breaking is permissible in executing an arrest under certain circumstances”); see also, e.g., White & Wiltsheire, 2 Rolle 137, ___, 81 Eng. Rep. 709, 710 (K. B. 1619) (upholding the sheriff’s breaking of the door of the plaintiff’s dwelling after the sheriff’s bailiffs had been imprisoned in plaintiff’s dwelling while they attempted an earlier execution of the seizure); Pugh v. Griffith, 7 Ad. & E. 827, 840-841, 112 Eng. Rep. 681, 686 (K. B. 1838) (holding that “the necessity of a demand . . . is obviated, because there was nobody on whom a demand could be made” and noting that White & Wiltsheire leaves open the possibility that there may be “other occasions where the outer door may be broken” without prior demand).
Indeed, at the time of the framing, the common-law admonition that an officer “ought to signify the cause of his coming,” Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. Rep., at 91b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 195, had not been extended conclusively to the context of felony arrests. See Blakey, supra, at 503 (”The full scope of the application of the rule in criminal cases . . . was never judicially settled”); Launock v. Brown, 2 B. & Ald. 592, 593, 106 Eng. Rep. 482, 483 (K. B. 1819) (”It is not at present necessary for us to decide how far, in the case of a person charged with felony, it would be necessary to make a previous demand of admittance before you could justify breaking open the outer door of his house”); W. Murfree, Law of Sheriffs and Other Ministerial Officers 1163, p. 631 (1st ed. 1884) (”[A]lthough there has been some doubt on the question, the better opinion seems to be that, in cases of felony, no demand of admittance is necessary, especially as, in many cases, the delay incident to it would enable the prisoner to escape”). The common-law principle gradually was applied to cases involving felonies, but at the same time the courts continued to recognize that under certain circumstances the presumption in favor of announcement necessarily would give way to contrary considerations.
Thus, because the common-law rule was justified in part by the belief that announcement generally would avoid “the destruction or breaking of any house . . . by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue,” Semayne’s Case, supra, at 91b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 196, courts acknowledged that the presumption in favor of announcement would yield under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence. See, e.g., Read v. Case, 4 Conn. 166, 170 (1822) (plaintiff who “had resolved . . . to resist even to the shedding of blood . . . was not within the reason and spirit of the rule requiring notice”); Mahomed v. The Queen, 4 Moore 239, 247, 13 Eng. Rep. 293, 296 (P. C. 1843) (”While he was firing pistols at them, were they to knock at the door, and to ask him to be pleased to open it for them? The law in its wisdom only requires this ceremony to be observed when it possibly may be attended with some advantage, and may render the breaking open of the outer door unnecessary”). Similarly, courts held that an officer may dispense with announcement in cases where a prisoner escapes from him and retreats to his dwelling. See, e.g., ibid.; Allen v. Martin, 10 Wend. 300, 304 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1833). Proof of “demand and refusal” was deemed unnecessary in such cases because it would be a “senseless ceremony” to require an officer in pursuit of a recently escaped arrestee to make an announcement prior to breaking the door to retake him. Id., at 304. Finally, courts have indicated that unannounced entry may be justified where police officers have reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given. See Ker, 374 U.S., at 40 -41 (plurality opinion); People v. Maddox, 46 Cal. 2d 301, 305-306, 294 P.2d 6, 9 (1956).
We need not attempt a comprehensive catalog of the relevant countervailing factors here. For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We simply hold that although a search or seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective if police officers enter without prior announcement, law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry.”
So no one at the scene of entry had a written copy of the warrant with the proper address on it? Not even a text with the proper address? If so this should have been a no go without it.
“I suspect complacency and a lazy execution.”
I’m starting to think that the maximum IQ cap eligibility isn’t helping with this either.
OMG they had an arsenal! /S
Small amounts of drugs could have been 'throw-downs' from the cops to cover their ass. Their informant said 'large quantities' of drugs in baggies. Informant was probably busted with the heroin and rolled on these people to save his own hide.
No knock raids have been going bad since no knock raids began. It isn’t the bad guys or the cops who suffer, it is the good old American Taxpayer.
My take has always been, two gentlemen in suits with a warrant at the door. When that is not good enough, we have lost the war, and life as we know it is over.
Completely acceptable loss ratio to keep the rest of us safe.
I will leave my thoughts from the original raid thread here.
“No knock warrants are dangerous, of dubious constitutionality (not legal for this instance until 1995), and should only be reserved for the most severe cases. In ‘81 only 3000 no knock warrants were signed. In ‘05 alone 50,000 no knock warrants were signed and carried out. A number which has certainly grown since then.
I personally do not care about the people in question, nor this particular raid in general. I care about the rights of my fellow Americans, and the seemingly constant eroding of those rights under the guise of safety, or for our own good, or for the children. I reject those arguments outright.”
And this quote, which I found somewhere (not sure of the author).
“Police-state style assault forces being used to violently enter a persons residence when that person is not actively engaged in violent acts are incompatible with life in a free society.
As it is better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent person be imprisoned. So too is it better a hundred guilty destroy evidence of their guilt than one innocent person’s life be risked or worse ended by an extremely violent breach of the peace initiated by agents of the State.”
Even though the warrant said “Harding “, the warrant itself could have been wrong.
A mistake is a mistake, bad eyes are bad eyes, the judge was half drunk READING the damned thing, The house NUMBER was correct when the perp listed it on his last arrest ...
No, I'm not a cop, but I'm not a wife and mother neither and if it was up to me I'd be in jail or I'd'a killed my kids after babysitting them more than an hour ....
ALL I said was I want to see the REQUEST for the warrant, NOT invite everyone to play amateur psychoanalyst on me.
As it is better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent person be imprisoned. So too is it better a hundred guilty destroy evidence of their guilt than one innocent person’s life be risked or worse ended by an extremely violent breach of the peace initiated by agents of the State.”
Stealing that.....
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.