With suspicion of police so widespread these days and suspects often claiming that the cops planted something when searching their homes I think taking a leaf from the Ancient Romans could prove beneficial for all.
In his Attic Nights (book xvi, 10) the 2nd century AD Roman writer Aulus Gellius describes the process known to the ancients as cum lance et licio, roughly translated as ‘by plate and girdle’. When a citizen was accused of theft and it was necessary to search his home the officials tasked with the search would completely strip except for a small girdle covering their genitals. They would then place a perforated plate before their face and enter the suspect’s home to conduct the search. Their near-nakedness was proof that they were carrying nothing in with which to falsely incriminate the suspect and the plate was there to respect the modesty of any females within (illogical, sure, but a nice gesture).
I think it an ideal method for removing suspicion from the police and it has the added bonus, with strategic cameras to film their entry and exit, of adding to the sum of human merriment and entertainment. Win-win!
What does this do to address police searches that begin with concussion grenades being thrown through windows and the front door being smashed open by a battering ram, and then the “search” being conducted by a SWAT team?
Of all the perceived problems with police searches these days, bringing in evidence to falsely implicate the residents is pretty far down the list I’m not saying it never happens, but I think it’s very rare. For example, I represented a lot of defendants whose homes were searched, not one complained of police planting evidence.
Provide evidence that concussion grenades have been used in serving a search warrant. No knock warrants are necessary when there is a chance that evidence will be destroyed.
what i find controversial is that the police and courts often forget that there’s a chance that there’s no evidence there in the first place. that they often forget that these “suspects” are presumed innocent under our laws. that they often storm into a home as an invading army would storm an enemy fort, damaging and upsetting property in the process. they forget that oftentimes there’s innocent residents coexisting in these homes and their property is not subject to search and seizure, and yet is oft searched and seized anyway.
that police can often search and seize with no more authority than their word. that there is no process in place to return seized property when the court fails to prove that the suspects are indeed guilty. that there’s no process in place to pay for damage done when the court fails to find the suspect guilty, or when the courts and police make a mistake and search the wrong residence.
there’s so much wrong with the current process that stripping them down is not even gonna make a bit of difference. its whats in their minds and hearts thats the problem, not whats in their pockets.
This is like saying cops should be allowed to shoot any person they see because there is a chance that person could whip out a gun and shoot the cop first; can’t be too careful, you know.
Actually, you can be too careful. As mikecurtis points out, no-knock warrants invariably do property damage, and (as my previous links show) carry a high risk of serious injury for all parties involved, including innocent and not-yet-convicted persons residing in the building.
I apologize for having introduced the distraction. Please mentally amend my post to read flash bang and not concussive grenade, and let’s return to the question of whether naked cops are a solution to people’s fears of planted evidence during searches.
What kinds of crimes have “evidence” that can so easily be destroyed, besides drug offenses, and are drug offenses really so serious that such measures are necessary to gain a conviction?
Come on, guys, I put this in IMHO rather than GD for a reason. I know I used the word seriously in the topic heading but didn’t any of you detect that my tongue was firmly in my cheek? Even with the bit about the cameras at the end?
Ah well, my bad. I can see that I’ll have to be more open in my satire in future. My attempt at A Modest Proposal failed miserably. Yes, don’t say it, I’m no Swift.
Not exactly. The presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law - the police are under no obligation to assume innocence.
A search warrant only needs enough to convince a judge that a crime has been committed, and that evidence relating to that crime is likely to be found where the warrant is to be executed.(Cite.)
oh. . .haha. . . good one. . .
seriously, i think most of the posters in this thread realized that you were joshing (at least i did). but youve hit on a salient point; namely that the american law enforcement community is suffering from a growing crisis of faith from the public. and theyre not doing themselves any favors by continuing to hold fast to outmoded and out dated methods of keeping the peace. the notion that anything they do is acceptable because then ends justify the means, is becoming less and less acceptable to society. its sometimes a case of the cure being worse than the illness.
and therein lies the crux of the problem. if you believe that the people youre dealing with are criminals and youre the good guys, then you have no problem doing whatever it takes to put them away. even ethically borderline (and sometimes outright criminal) methods. problem is not everyone is the bad guy and maybe a presumption of innocence by all involved might not be such a bad thing.
