Seems. There is a whole lot of importance behind that one little word. That’s how it seems to you. On this side where we actually have to go to judges and argue for warrants it is clear that no knock warrants are very hard to get and have become nearly impossible compared to 10 years ago. Of course the usual disclaimer of laws being different from state to state yadda yadda.
And please enlighten me from your vast knowledge of law enforcement and the law, what constitutes a simple drug raid?
There’s no end of documentation of inept police activity. However, I’ll say - I think more than 90% - the vast majority - of police are well-meaning. The trick is to not look like you’re covering for any of the chronic problem-causers.
Yes, we’re straying into debate here - but I would say a “simple” drug raid is any where there’s minimal evidence of drug trafficking (i.e. only one or two reports of drugs seen or sold) and no ongoing evidence this is a drug sales operation with a large inventory or plenty of customers. In that case, 3 or 4 officers can knock on the door like they are asking questions, wait the appropriate amount of time (30 seconds or more?) before if necessary kicking in the door. Unless there’s evidence of firearms and a personality who tends to use them, why is SWAT needed?
Many of the tragedies above, the police barged in without warning, and the occupants were unclear if they were confronting a criminal or police home invasion. Of course, if all the criminals have to do to prevent return fire is yell “police” then nobody will believe the real police. it seems in many of these cases the police had very little idea who they were after or even how many people (and ages) in the house.
One case near Montreal, the police barged in on a known drug dealer in the middle of the night, narrowly missed hitting his children, and he shot a police officer because he though he was being jacked by rivals. If the case is this important - why can’t the police detain the person outside his home with a traffic stop, then search the house a lot less dangerously for both sides?
if the case is important enough to use a SWAT team or a no-knock warrant, perhaps it should also be important enough to do deeper investigation first.
Aiyana Jones (7 years old) killed in a SWAT raid in Detroit. The police were looking for a shooting suspect. If you’re going to search, why SWAT? The suspect isn’t going to flush himself down the toilet. Knock on the door. Ask to search. The house is surround, he’s not going anywhere. How often do those type start blasting through the door at police? Will a big raid of SWAT-dressed guys with assault rifles waving and thunderflashes going off make the person more or less likely to shoot back rather than surrender peacefully?
In the case being cited here we don’t know who was being pursued. What their history of violence is. If they were known to carry guns. Nothing. So it’s nearly impossible to make an argument either way what the proper tactics would be.
Just because you can find examples of when mistakes have been made does not mean that your perception is correct. Your perception is what you chose to mention in this GQ thread. I bring actual experience into it. Although it is only anecdote it is 16 years worth of anecdote which shows your perception is the exact opposite of what I see going on. No knock warrants are hard to get and getting harder all the time. Most of the time we don’t even try because writing up a warrant is a pain in the ass and no one wants to waste their time and be denied.
So the town will spend thousands of dollars on legal fees (as well as the legal fees of the family), and yet in the long run, they’ll have to pay the medical costs. Why not just cut out the middleman and pay the damned medical bills? What possible defense can the town have? “Well, that family shouldn’t have had the child’s crib in flash-bang range.”
For example - If the town is insured for this sort of stuff - then any hint of admitting guilt is likely to void their agreement, meaning they pay instead of their insurance. (Same reason why you don’t say anything in a car accident).
From FindLaw.com:
horrible as the case is, if the police were simply doing what they normally do, if the city was simply doing its job, they do not have to pay. If they do not have to pay, the city has no right to give away taxpayer’s money arbitrarily to one citizen.
So the question has to go to court - is tossing a flashbang blindly a reasonable action that this time had unfortunate results? Or does it “exceed reasonable bounds”?
(One article the police wer quoted saying they dropped it just inside the door, standard procedure, next to the playpen.
If no-knock warrants are indeed harder to get - you are reinforcing my belief that things will get better. From what I read, these were almost impossible to get and reserved for dire circumstances until the 80’s, when courts decided they were acceptable procedure and they became progressively more common. Since we saw the maroons in Ferguson riot control waving automatic weapons at the crowd, I do have to wonder if the situation varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another and depending on the police, DA’s, and judges involved. If the pendulum swings back the other way, good.
IMHO, which this is the wrong forum and is irrelevant because I’m not American, no-knock should be reserved for the most egregious circumstances - organized crime, large-volume drug dealers, proven violent suspects, etc. - and after serious study of what the force is getting into.
For the OP and GQ - the ACLU report on police militarization estimates approximately 130 or so SWAT actions across the USA every day. This has climbed dramatically in the last decade despite the fact that actual crime statistics are dropping. Not every SWAT is a no-knock and not every no-knock is a SWAT action, so it’s only partially relevant.
In the OP’s case, the police were searching for a suspect (just as in the Detroit case). Is it really necessary to use SWAT to search for a suspect in a house? An informant bought some drugs there, but by the time of the raid the dealer (a nephew) was gone, no drugs found. One would think if the case was important enough to use a SWAT team, the house should have been watched to be see if the suspect left or not.
Also, what was the point of SWAT? Is a suspect more or less likely to open fire if a group of police come to the door? Is a sudden firefight preferable to a possible armed standoff? How many suspects, armed or not, open fire when the house is surrounded just because the police are wearing plain blue uniforms not riot gear? (Presumably in either case, they wear the vests). Does SWAT cover the back door, or do they rely on surprise to stop the suspect from running out the back or jumping out a window? If a SWAT raid comes in the front door and the guy starts running away, are they allowed to fire? (Several of the incidents described, the SWAT teams appeared to have itchy trigger fingers).
The only conceivable use for a no-knock warrant would be to stop the suspect from flushing drugs. If the suspect can flush all his drugs in one go, including traces, presumably it wasn’t much of an operation to begin with and probably didn’t warrant a military raid. In all other cases, it seems to me the police are in fact more at risk with a surprise raid - people will do stuff in the moment they may not do if they are fully awake, have time to think and realize they are caught. Just because a suspect is sleeping doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a loaded weapon within reach if startled.
Qualified immunity will protect the individual police officer who threw the grenade (And it seems almost certain that he will be protected in this case). I don’t think it protects the department, or the city. If an innocent person is injured in a police shootout, they’ll still get compensation from the department (and therefore the city), but the guy who shot him won’t go to jail.
So what’s going to happen in this case? It seems like it should be straightforward for the family to file a suit, and hopefully the city quickly agrees to a settlement that includes paying medical bills? Is that what the objection is, they just need a judge to sign off on the settlement?
A more recent update here. This story says the warrant was executed on the wrong house.
IANAL, but if the police erred in identifying the house, the family will be able to win the inevitable lawsuit. And once the lawyers get involved, they’re going to seek punitive damages (which they’re totally entitled to). Had the authorities just paid the hospital bill, the family might never have sued.
I’ve been following this story and that’s the first time I’ve seen that claim made. I wonder if it’s been confirmed by police or is just coming from the family and their lawyer.
Exactly, it is the police who are the bad guys here. This cop should be given the death penalty.