In my county, the Sheriff’s Office handles prisoners. Transfers, supervising them during work releases, stuff like that. The county PD covers everything else.
And for pot, fer chrisakes! Smack, sure, I can understand, some. Meth, you betcha, go get 'em! But weed?
Not sure of the legal implications, but the story I read indicated that MIL screamed as the SWAT officers approached. From the perspective of the officers, do you still knock, affording the people inside additional time to find weapons, or just figure, “Fuck it, they know we’re here” and proceed to enter?
Sure, these were allegedly innocent folks caught up in a strange operation, but drug dealers in general don’t set out tea and scones when the PD knocks. Surprise and speed reduce the opportunity for criminal persons to respond with lethal force against law enforcement.
You need to write better headlines, Dio. I thought maybe you were describing a drunken hookup with a slutty third cousin last weekend in Garrett County. 
On the other hand, it seems to increase the chance of the police accidentally using lethal force against innocent people. Not sure if the trade off is really worth it, at least in the dubious cause of fighting the drug war.
I’m not going to hijack this into a drug war debate. The laws are what they are, and so long as they have not been repealed or ruled unconstitutional, the police and related agencies are charged with their enforcement.
And also held accountable to follow them. Something the police in this case did not do.
They didn’t have a no knock warrant. They didn’t even try to get one. If they were really concerned that the mayor was going to eat the 32 pounds of weed that the cops had left on his porch, they could have asked for a no knock warrant. I seriosuly doubt that a terrified, screaming mother-in-law absolves them of the need to knock and announce themselves (these guys weren’t even in uniform). Even if they wnted to make that kind of argument, they chose to LIE instead and say they had a warrant they didn’t have.
I used to live in Brentwood, MD right in PG county, by the way. One of my favorite PGPD stories is of the miscreant who had to be transfered to the next county. The PGPD arranged to me the other policemen behind a shopping center to hand the guy over. The other police agency was late, so the PGPD waited and then did the obvious thing.
They handcuffed the guy to a light post and drove away.
I so misread that thread title . . .
I met a guy at a New Years party who lived in PG County. While the guy was in his backyard working, a cop come to his house on some innocuous call. The cop was frightened by a lab retriever on the other side of a storm door, so the cop pulled out his pistol and started firing as he quickly retreated. Several shots were fired, and the dog was killed.
After a months long investigation, the cop was fired, but not brought up on any charges. He ended up working for another police department in the area. He shot and killed a young (pre-teenage) boy a couple years later.
I think Prince Georges makes DC look like Westchester County.
Not even when you put them in blue outfits and pin badges on them.
Yes. The laws are what they are.
And they say that the police are not permitted to enter in this manner without specific authorization in their warrant.
Throw 'em under the jail.
There’s no “allegedly” about it, and in any event the burden of proof is that they’re guilty, not innocent. Do you think that if there was a shred of evidence showing they were anything but innocent that the police would not have arrested them? They were nothing more than the victims of yet another case of Cops Gone Wild.
On a note to the audience, what is it going to take in this country before we start enacting and enforcing brutal, brutal punishments on law enforcement who commit egregious and disgusting misdeeds like in the OP?
Yep, that’s the one.
A warrant was issued. You don’t get them at the Dollar Store. As of 1350 today, no statement had been issued which I had read regarding the matter. News sources are now stating that the couple has been cleared of wrongdoing, so, were I posting now, I wouldn’t use the word “allegedly”. Happy now?
Review your own wording, mmkay? “The burden of proof is that they’re guilty, not innocent.” Not quite. The burden is on the state to prove guilt.
Hee-hee! I don’t know which is funnier the fact that the cops are the one’s who put the suspicious package on the porch*, or that the mayor told them he was the mayor and they didn’t believe him. What, they didn’t know whose house they were bustin’ into?
"Okay, I know they were just trying to catch the intended recipients of the package (a drug ring was sending stuff out to random innocent people and then the drug courier would steal the packages off the porch), but still, the image of the cops putting a package on an innocent person’s doorstep so they can charge in is kind of funny. They could do that to anybody. Get a box, write “Drugs!” on it, and if someone takes the box inside, attack!
There’s no such thing as “allegedly innocent.” Innocence is the a priori assumption. These people were never “alleged” to have committed any crime (and a warrant is not an allegation of a crime). Removing that word now still shows a lack of understanding that you used it incorrectly the first time.
Enjoy picking those nits, Dio.
Ye-ah, so not getting into this any further.