No Knock Warrants and the EMT

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Wonder about anything you wish to wonder about - nobody is going to stop you.

The LEO's entered the wrong residence. If you have any evidence that the two victims had criminal convictions please share.

Black, therefore criminals. See the jogger thread.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

If the judge thinks that was a warranted search, then either the judge failed miserably or the law fails miserably. But we can't necessarily blame the police for going to the wrong address. Blame the system that allows warrants to searches based on tenuous information. It's possible that the victim or the guy arrested knew the suspect they were looking for. But is that enough to justify busting into their apartment in the middle of the night?

Can't I blame the police for shooting at a nurse in her home?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Black, therefore criminals. See the jogger thread.

I'd like to know if the individual the warrant was intended for was black.

Believe it or not, ethnic mismatches happen.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by CORed

I'm old enough to remember when no-knock warrants were first allowed (at least at the federal level) IIRC, it was during the Nixon administration, and the original justification was that it was to prevent people from disposing of evidence in drug raids. I have to wonder though, if a quantity of drugs that can be readily flushed down a toilet after the cops knock on the door ever justifies the risk of a no-knock raid. I do realize that a few pounds of many drugs is a fairly significant amount, in terms of monetary value or number of doses; however, we're still probably looking at a retail level dealer if that's all they have.

I suppose that there are situations that justify a no-knock raid, but I think they are grossly overused, resulting in a lot of unnecessary risk to both law enforcement and civilians.

If a bunch of hardened, armed criminals are holed up in a house somewhere, why not just leave them there. Get them when they come out to get a burger or something? Or actively siege them, put a bundle of armed policemen around the house and just wait till the buggers run out of food.

Perhaps this is done and just doesn't generate headlines?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Can't I blame the police for shooting at a nurse in her home?

Given the realities of a shooting inside a building, at night, the officers involved may not have had any specific target identified - they fired towards the area where they believed the threat was located.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by BStrong

No - your opinion is based on something very far removed from knowledge of the subject matter.

My opinion is based on direct experience - both good and bad - with the subject matter.

And as such the police should always be above all petty moral concerns. Like how merely being a cop means one can legally point guns at people for no reason other than to watch their faces, yet that is a felony for those worthless peon civilians.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Given the realities of a shooting inside a building, at night, the officers involved may not have had any specific target identified - they fired towards the area where they believed the threat was located.

That sounds like an argument in my favour, not the reverse.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That sounds like an argument in my favour, not the reverse.

You are not a cop, cops know they don't need to worry about things like stray bullets or good target identification, that is for civilians. As an officer of the law(possibly) Bstrong knows that cops shooting means stray bullets everywhere that they bear no legal responsibility for. As it should be.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That sounds like an argument in my favour, not the reverse.

I wasn't arguing against you, I was attempting to explain the possible conditions at the scene.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by 3point14

If a bunch of hardened, armed criminals are holed up in a house somewhere, why not just leave them there. Get them when they come out to get a burger or something? Or actively siege them, put a bundle of armed policemen around the house and just wait till the buggers run out of food.

Perhaps this is done and just doesn't generate headlines?

Turn the water to the building off first?

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

One thing that we need to be clear about: there is no basis for the claim that they went to the wrong place. We know that the person they were looking for was not at the place, nor even lived in the apartment complex, but we do not know that they did not have a warrant for that place. Therefore, the medical checklist approach may not apply.

Now, we can say that the person wasn't there, so whatever basis they used for the warrant is who knows what. One would hope that the granting of a no-knock-middle-of-the-night warrant needs to be based on the knowledge of an immediate threat, and that was clearly not the case here. Even if the claim is that there was basis to believe there were drugs in the apartment, that is not a justification for the middle of the night raid.

If the judge thinks that was a warranted search, then either the judge failed miserably or the law fails miserably. But we can't necessarily blame the police for going to the wrong address. Blame the system that allows warrants to searches based on tenuous information. It's possible that the victim or the guy arrested knew the suspect they were looking for. But is that enough to justify busting into their apartment in the middle of the night?

Cops should have to stake their careers on information they say comes from a confidential informant where a no-knock warrant is concerned.
After all - they are telling a judge that they have such confidence in their informant that the judge should believe the information and issue a warrant to enter a home without invitation which is a huge violation of a citizen's rights. Not to mention a very dangerous and traumatic experience.

Based on my own experience and those of other officers I worked with (purely anecdotal of course) most confidential informants are liars and no-one should ever believe their information without corroboration.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Specific to the case at hand:

Piss poor preparation by the agency involved.

The survivor shouldn't be prosecuted.

The victim should sue the agency and the municipality.

General.

All agencies should be held to best practices of warrant service and or dynamic entry (outside of legit exigent circumstances) ie - two supervisors review all pertinent facts with the first requirement being that the correct location is verified and all officers involved are briefed on the address/location etc. and they correctly identify the A/L in the brief-back.

Ending the no-knock (outside of a narrow exception) would be ideal, but Trump will be admitted to Mensa before that happens.

^This^

[Emily's Cat]

With what information is known at the moment, I'm not inclined to assume racism, or even racial bias involved in the shooting itself. Horrifically bad police work, for which I think the superiors and the judge should be held accountable, but I don't see any reason to assume racism.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the victim of this errant warrant being charged with anything at all. I find that horribly wrong.

[Checkmite]

It hasn't yet been claimed that racism was involved in the shooting itself. After all, the police appear to have just reenacted that scene from Predator without ever seeing the occupants of the house.

The (potential) racism comes in at the response. It was an unannounced raid at the wrong house and the occupants have no criminal record whatsoever; but they are black, and thus the police's mindset seems to be so there's probably something about them or their history that can be used to portray them as bad people who had something like this coming due to some moral failing or other.

[Athyrio]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

For example, if police announced their presence before entry but the defendant was asleep until after entrance, but the jury doesn't believe that, then they're screwed.

Is that what happened here? Lt. Ted Eidem of the “Public Integrity Unit” says the police “knocked several times and announced they were police with a warrant.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...rnd/index.html

On the other hand, this article says a judge approved a no-knock order for the raid which means they don’t have to announce their presence.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1205651


So, are the police saying they had a no-knock warrant but knocked anyway? And was the victim asleep and just didn’t hear the knocking?

[Checkmite]

Sounds like the police still need to get their story straight. Did they "accidentally" apply for a no-knock warrant for "accidentally" the wrong address?

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What are you talking about? My bet would be police would score as having low regard for the humanity of suspects and that helps fuel the overuse of no knock raids.

No-knock raids are sometimes important to protect the life of the occupants as well as the life of the officers. Shootouts are bad and the element of surprise at the right time can overwhelm an individual or group and result in the apprehension of suspects before they have a chance to arm themselves or use their weapons.

But - and it's a big but - no-knock raids should only be used after a decision by a high ranking officer has been made that a no-knock warrant is the only reasonable alternative to achieve the objectives of the warrant.
That decision should be made only after thorough investigation using direct police observation reports and absolutely reliable information. If you can come up with another way to apprehend the suspects and/or interdict the contraband that involves less risk - do it!

IMHO - The trouble with policing and many other professions is that if you have this big shiny cool tool that makes your life easier called a hammer - then everything begins to look like a nail.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Athyrio

Is that what happened here? Lt. Ted Eidem of the “Public Integrity Unit” says the police “knocked several times and announced they were police with a warrant.

<snip>

Smashing a door open with a sledgehammer does create knocking sounds. Rather loud ones to be sure - but that is why the other fellow was screaming "POLICE!" at the top of his lungs so he could be heard over the loud knocking.
Besides you have to be loud so you can be heard over the sounds of the gunfire.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Athyrio

So, are the police saying they had a no-knock warrant but knocked anyway? And was the victim asleep and just didn’t hear the knocking?

No-knock raids don't "knock" (ie, announce their presence and wait for you to open the door). But they do usually announce their presence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
"In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property."

The justification is rapid entry to either prevent suspects from destroying evidence or to prevent them from mounting an organized resistance. But they still generally announce their presence. Doing so doesn't compromise this goal, and can reduce the odds of armed resistance (drug dealers who would shoot rival gangs might not risk attacking police) and also provides better legal justification for any shooting by police or prosecution of anyone who shoots at police.

But it's not foolproof. In addition to the possibility of people being asleep or otherwise unaware for the initial announcement, there's also the problem that non-police home invaders can claim to be police. This has happened before, so the announcement alone cannot constitute proof that they are police. And if the police get the wrong address and target a home with no criminal activity, the occupant might believe a home invasion is more likely.

[erlando]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...her-apartment/

Quote:

On March 13, the 26-year-old aspiring nurse was killed in her apartment, shot at least eight times by Louisville police officers who officials have said were executing a drug warrant, according to a lawsuit filed by the family, accusing officers of wrongful death, excessive force and gross negligence.

Quote:

According to the lawsuit, filed April 27, Louisville police executed a search warrant at Taylor’s home, looking for a man who did not live in Taylor’s apartment complex and had already been detained when officers came to Taylor’s apartment after midnight. Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, was also in the apartment and, according to the lawsuit, shot at officers when they attempted to enter without announcing themselves. The lawsuit alleges that police fired more than 20 rounds of ammunition into the apartment.

Quote:

None of the officers involved have been charged in connection with the shooting. Walker, a licensed gun owner who was not injured in the incident, was arrested and faces charges of first-degree assault and attempted murder of a police officer.

Again a case of police officers not being competent enough to even ensure they're raiding the right address and not announcing themselves before trying to force entry. And they were looking for a guy that never lived at that apartment or complex and that was already in custody.

But I'm sure the usual "I was afraid for my life" excuse applies here...

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No-knock raids don't "knock" (ie, announce their presence and wait for you to open the door). But they do usually announce their presence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
"In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property."

The justification is rapid entry to either prevent suspects from destroying evidence or to prevent them from mounting an organized resistance. But they still generally announce their presence. Doing so doesn't compromise this goal, and can reduce the odds of armed resistance (drug dealers who would shoot rival gangs might not risk attacking police) and also provides better legal justification for any shooting by police or prosecution of anyone who shoots at police.

But it's not foolproof. In addition to the possibility of people being asleep or otherwise unaware for the initial announcement, there's also the problem that non-police home invaders can claim to be police. This has happened before, so the announcement alone cannot constitute proof that they are police. And if the police get the wrong address and target a home with no criminal activity, the occupant might believe a home invasion is more likely.

I suspect most people would assess their chances of a home invasion are much higher than the chances of a police invasion. I don't own a gun, but, in another, bizarro-world, where I do, if anyone knocks down my door shouting 'Police', I'm not going to take their word for it and someone's probably going to be shot (again, in bizarro-world, where I can aim)

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

No-knock raids are sometimes important to protect the life of the occupants as well as the life of the officers. Shootouts are bad and the element of surprise at the right time can overwhelm an individual or group and result in the apprehension of suspects before they have a chance to arm themselves or use their weapons.

This claim seems like one that is speculative based on anecdote when it could be actually supported with a hypothesis and study. Therefore I reject your claim.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No-knock raids don't "knock" (ie, announce their presence and wait for you to open the door). But they do usually announce their presence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant
"In most cases, law enforcement will identify themselves just before they forcefully enter the property."

The justification is rapid entry to either prevent suspects from destroying evidence or to prevent them from mounting an organized resistance. But they still generally announce their presence. Doing so doesn't compromise this goal, and can reduce the odds of armed resistance (drug dealers who would shoot rival gangs might not risk attacking police) and also provides better legal justification for any shooting by police or prosecution of anyone who shoots at police.

But it's not foolproof. In addition to the possibility of people being asleep or otherwise unaware for the initial announcement, there's also the problem that non-police home invaders can claim to be police. This has happened before, so the announcement alone cannot constitute proof that they are police. And if the police get the wrong address and target a home with no criminal activity, the occupant might believe a home invasion is more likely.

Yelling "police" as the door is knocked in may as well be a no-announce raid. The residents have no reasonable amount of time to asses the situation and react appropriately. This assumes the residents even hear or understand the declaration during the chaotic entry. Many times these raids occur at night and the residents awake to the sounds of a forceful intrusion. In this example, WaPo reports the raid occurred after midnight.


It's a distinction without a difference, practically speaking.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This claim seems like one that is speculative based on anecdote when it could be actually supported with a hypothesis and study. Therefore I reject your claim.

Well then, ...

Since your actually reject his claim, then kindly do us all a favor by knocking on a few front doors of houses where the occupants are desperate and heavily armed criminals in order to serve a search warrant, and the let us know how serving that warrant works out for you.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well then, ...

Since your actually reject his claim, then please go ahead and knock on a few front doors of houses where the occupants are desperate and heavily armed criminals in order to serve a search warrant, and the let us know how serving that warrant works out for you.

Sure, these raids are great for the cops. It shifts the risks of making arrests more onto the general public and off of law enforcement. It decreases the chance a suspect will be able to resist effectively and increases the chance that residents of the home will be killed during the chaotic raid.

So many of these concessions for officer safety end up coming at the expense of the rights and safety of the general public.

I would argue that it is the explicit purpose of the police to put themselves in harms way to serve the public, and these kinds of tactics are a repudiation of that honorable public service.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sure, these raids are great for the cops. It shifts the risks of making arrests more onto the general public and off of law enforcement. It decreases the chance a suspect will be able to resist effectively and increases the chance that residents of the home will be killed during the chaotic raid.

So many of these concessions for officer safety end up coming at the expense of the rights and safety of the general public.

I would argue that it is the explicit purpose of the police to put themselves in harms way to serve the public, and these kinds of tactics are a repudiation of that honorable public service.

And what is there evidence about the risk of knock raids?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I would argue that it is the explicit purpose of the police to put themsel

ves in harms way to serve the public, and these kinds of tactics are a repudiation of that honorable public service.

I agree. The courts did not, as I understand it. A policeman in the USA is under no obligation to assist a member of the public who is currently being the victim of a crime. None. They are allowed to decide "stuff that, it's too dangerous, I'll just get the EMT in afterwards."


I imagine not all of them take the 'running away' option.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

And what is there evidence about the risk of knock raids?

Well obviously if they give the suspects a fair warning beforehand they would possibly have time to dispose of potential evidence.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Well obviously if they give the suspects a fair warning beforehand they would possibly have time to dispose of potential evidence.

So they were going to flush the guy the cops were looking for down the toilet? That is a new argument. The cops were looking for a person not evidence in this case, who was of course already in police custody. But yes totally worth the minor collateral damage.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Well obviously if they give the suspects a fair warning beforehand they would possibly have time to dispose of potential evidence.

A lot of possible things could possibly happen.

The question is does the data support that? How often is evidence destroyed? Is it sufficient evidence to affect the outcome of the case? How much less evidence is destroyed in a no knock raids? We don't do, "well, obviously" for science or medicine.

How about instead of "well, obviously" policing we do evidence based policing?

[Garb]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

How about instead of "well, obviously" policing we do evidence based policing?

Great question! We should ask the police about that.

[BStrong]

If the news can be believed. the word now is the actual bad actor at the heart of the investigation was in custody at the time of the warrant service, and the location that was entered was used at one time by the BA to receive mail/package deliveries.

How that warranted the raid as executed isn't clear to me. Both occupants of the residence had clear backgrounds w/ no arrests or convictions and the surviving victim is reported to have had a carry permit.

If the powers that be want to prosecute the surviving victim, the entry team should face charges no less than what the survivor is charged with and a manslaughter/murder charge as well.

[3point14]

Presumably, there's a bloke somewhere who signed a bit of paper with an address on it?


How does that bloke still have a job?

Hands up who'd be fired if their cock-up at work caused someone to die.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Well obviously if they give the suspects a fair warning beforehand they would possibly have time to dispose of potential evidence.

In theory that's how the NK warrants began, but today the emphasis on the LED side of the question is to put as many officers as quickly as possible into a space, hopefully overpowering any initial resistance and minimizing the ability of the intended actors to mount an armed defense.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It hasn't yet been claimed that racism was involved in the shooting itself. After all, the police appear to have just reenacted that scene from Predator without ever seeing the occupants of the house.

The (potential) racism comes in at the response. It was an unannounced raid at the wrong house and the occupants have no criminal record whatsoever; but they are black, and thus the police's mindset seems to be so there's probably something about them or their history that can be used to portray them as bad people who had something like this coming due to some moral failing or other.

There's potential for racial bias to be involved in the response to the raid, certainly. I think there's also potential for racial bias to be involved in the issuance of the no-knock raid to begin with, but given that I don't know anything about the actual target of the raid, I really can't do anything more than speculate.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

A lot of possible things could possibly happen.

The question is does the data support that? How often is evidence destroyed? Is it sufficient evidence to affect the outcome of the case? How much less evidence is destroyed in a no knock raids? We don't do, "well, obviously" for science or medicine.

How about instead of "well, obviously" policing we do evidence based policing?

All I know is that Swedish police often find that people suspected of being in the possession of illegal substances very quickly try to dispose of said substances if they see the cops coming their way. They might swallow a plastic bag of drugs or try to flush it down the toilet.

If they swallow it they used to be able have them take ipecac or some such substance to make them vomit it up, but now they have to wait until it comes out the back end...

In a far more exceptional and rare case the SWAT team was sent into a apartment where they were running a online drug store and used flashbang grenades to stop them from being able to turn of the computer, since if they did it would have been encrypted and highly unlikely to have been cracked into.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

A lot of possible things could possibly happen.

The question is does the data support that? How often is evidence destroyed? Is it sufficient evidence to affect the outcome of the case? How much less evidence is destroyed in a no knock raids? We don't do, "well, obviously" for science or medicine.

How about instead of "well, obviously" policing we do evidence based policing?

If you want to accurately determine how how often evidence is destroyed by criminals who are trying to avoid going to jail, then I suggest that you ask the criminals for such data.

I expect that you will get many responses to such an information request, but for some odd reason I also expect that the quality of the data that you will be collecting will be quite poor.

[Suddenly]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Well obviously if they give the suspects a fair warning beforehand they would possibly have time to dispose of potential evidence.

There is of course the issue of "Yes, but so what?"

The whole point of protections against police overreach is that they weigh the right of people to be secure from state intrusiveness more than police convenience, and by definition this will make it harder for police to do their jobs.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Suddenly

There is of course the issue of "Yes, but so what?"

The whole point of protections against police overreach is that they weigh the right of people to be secure from state intrusiveness more than police convenience, and by definition this will make it harder for police to do their jobs.

Or it will force them to do their jobs properly. Being accountable to the public and not violating the rights of the citizens is not making it harder for them to do their job, it IS their job.

[JoeMorgue]

If you've got the amount of pot that can realistically be flushed down the toilet in between the police knocking on your door and you answering it I'm gonna go out on a limb here and not declare you a threat to society so great as to require a no-knock warrant.

Or he's a radical idea. You have a warrant. Search the house when they aren't there. That way they can't dispose of anything. Even pot heads have to leave the house and if they never leave the house who are they hurting?

It really does seem like "getting to shoot people" is the the point of no-knock warrants.