or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 121

post #1801 of 6095
Sweet, the Bush administration just got approval for an attorney general who abuses asset forfeiture, violates civil rights, loves secret prosecutions of American citizens, and tentatively authorizes drone strikes on us.

Oh shit, no, that's Obama, not Bush. Fuck.
post #1802 of 6095
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150418/09164130713/residence-with-locking-doors-working-toilet-is-all-thats-needed-to-justify-no-knock-warrant.shtml
Quote:
The affidavit supporting the warrant contained the following representations: 1) the extensive training and experience in drug investigations, controlled purchases and arrests of the officer who made the affidavit, 2) the confidential informant's report that the apartment for which a warrant was sought was "small, confined and private," 3) the confidential informant's report that the defendant "keeps his door locked and admits only people whom he knows," 4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone, and 5) the officer's assessment that, given the retail nature of the defendant's operation and the fragile nature of the illegal drugs involved, "it would not be difficult for [the defendant] to destroy the narcotics if given the forewarning."

Do you live in a house with a functional door? Looks like you get a no knock raid by an armed SWAT team.
post #1803 of 6095
Why didn't you bold the part about selling drugs to an informant?

Edit: oh, you're complaining about the no-knock bit.

The reviewing court actually says that the no-knock aspect of it was illegal. It just declined to suppress the evidence.
post #1804 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


The reviewing court actually says that the no-knock aspect of it was illegal. It just declined to suppress the evidence.

So basically laws mean nothing to law enforcement.
post #1805 of 6095
We got another low level drug dealer off the street. That's really all the matters here, people.
post #1806 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So basically laws mean nothing to law enforcement.

It was the judge who approved the no-knock that messed up. There's nothing interesting or remarkable about this ruling; if anything, it's aberrant for being unusually strict about them.

Why exactly would you suppress evidence obtained from a no-knock warrant that should have been a knock warrant, anyway? On the theory that the guy would have flushed the drugs before opening the door? That's nonsense. The SCOTUS decided a case a while back saying that suppression is not warranted even if the cops do a no-knock without being authorized by a judge.
post #1807 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Why exactly would you suppress evidence obtained from a no-knock warrant that should have been a knock warrant, anyway? On the theory that the guy would have flushed the drugs before opening the door?

Two reasons:

1) Police work should not be aided by illegal means
2) It could be me

Of course I do not deal drugs but I want it as hard as possible for police to invade my home. If we allow police to feel no-knock warrants improperly obtained are okay they could show up on your or my doorstep one day. I also feel we have to hold those that enforce the law to the highest degree of accountability. Ultimately, this is not about protecting some low level dealer working out of his home but to maintain a society where we can all feel secure from jack booted thugs in our homes.
post #1808 of 6095
You know they can invade the home, anyway, right? If you don't open the door they kick it in after 15 seconds.
post #1809 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

You know they can invade the home, anyway, right? If you don't open the door they kick it in after 15 seconds.

It seems to me the cops executing these no-knock warrants seem far more amped up and far more likely to kill innocent people. I could be wrong but the general impression I get is a no-knock warrant scenario tends to generate roid rage.
post #1810 of 6095
Well, you're wrong. If they were going to gear up and SWAT your house they're going to do it anyway. They'll just wait 15 seconds, which means they won't have the element of surprise and they'll be even more trigger happy.
post #1811 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Well, you're wrong. If they were going to gear up and SWAT your house they're going to do it anyway. They'll just wait 15 seconds, which means they won't have the element of surprise and they'll be even more trigger happy.

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. However I'm pretty comfortable erring on the side of leashing our overly gungho and paramilitary police forces. I'm also pretty happy to er on the side of liberty (going back to my first point which you ignored).
post #1812 of 6095
It's a nice-sounding idea, that cops should never be allowed to employ illegal means in their work, but ever since the serial killer argued he should be set free because the cop who caught him was illegally parked, and lost, it hasn't been the law of the land. The courts have to draw a line and violation of the no-knock rule falls on the other side of it.
post #1813 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

It's a nice-sounding idea, that cops should never be allowed to employ illegal means in their work, but ever since the serial killer argued he should be set free because the cop who caught him was illegally parked, and lost, it hasn't been the law of the land. The courts have to draw a line and violation of the no-knock rule falls on the other side of it.

This is where law school programming comes in. While I accept the practice of the day is what has been ruled through the courts I, as a non-lawyer, have no problems also holding the opinion this is wrong. Merely because it has been put into practice does not mean it should be SOP and does not mean we cannot roll back the clock with future rulings.
post #1814 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Well, you're wrong. If they were going to gear up and SWAT your house they're going to do it anyway. They'll just wait 15 seconds, which means they won't have the element of surprise and they'll be even more trigger happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. However I'm pretty comfortable erring on the side of leashing our overly gungho and paramilitary police forces. I'm also pretty happy to er on the side of liberty (going back to my first point which you ignored).

Rather than just conceding that cops are going to do whatever the fuck they want, maybe we should at least try to restrain them at least a little bit. There are a LOT of paramilitary style raids in this country, way more than there used to be. This isn't inevitable (or certainly necessary). There's more that can be done than simply sighing and shrugging our shoulders at the issue.


Or we could, you know, drastically scale back the drug war and eliminate the driving force for the vast majority of it.


edit: Cato Institute has a really extensive white paper on the rise of paramilitary policing in the US. This is one of those rare sectors where libertarians and progressives overlap. I'm honestly surprised that more conservatives don't care about these issues, but apparently the "law and order" byline is very effective.
post #1815 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This is where law school programming comes in. While I accept the practice of the day is what has been ruled through the courts I, as a non-lawyer, have no problems also holding the opinion this is wrong. Merely because it has been put into practice does not mean it should be SOP and does not mean we cannot roll back the clock with future rulings.

This is the same deal with the police shootings of late. Many of them are "justified" in the sense that they're legally allowable, but it for damn sure doesn't mean it was the best option available at the time. "Well, it wasn't illegal" is a lousy standard to hold our police to, especially when those laws can be changed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?