View Full Version : Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers
This will be interesting to see how it plays out.
-------
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law _Enforcement_Officers_120611
Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. It was signed by Republican Governor Mitch Daniels in March.
The first of its kind in the United States, the law was adopted after the state Supreme Court went too far in one of its rulings last year, according to supporters. The case in question involved a man who assaulted an officer during a domestic violence call. The court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries.
Tim Downs, president of the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police, which opposed the legislation, said the law could open the way for people who are under the influence or emotionally distressed to attack officers in their homes.
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Ghost_Team
06-12-2012, 15:15
Granted, I'm not an LEO, but my understanding of a "no knock" warrant is just that - you just go in.
That being said (and correct me if I am wrong) but it would seem to me that a no knock warrant would open you up to being shot as soon as you walk in the door.
I'm no fan of those few police who hide behind their badge on a power trip, but this just reeks of bad things to come.
......“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Downs told Bloomberg. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?
How about just follow the law.
You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.
How about just follow the law.
While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.
Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?
How about just follow the law.
You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.
How about just follow the law.
While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.
I'm with Pete on this one. There is and never will be a reason for any law enforcement officer to tactically enter my home. If they do they suffer the consequences.
airbornediver
06-12-2012, 15:55
ditto.
Uh huh, that bounty deal is a tad dramatic....
So, one in Indiana can shoot an LEO for unlawful entry, but with a warrant, no knock or other, that same person faces attempted or capital murder charge. For a no knock, that individual will not have any idea (hopefully) they are being served. And the types of folks who have these warrants served on them probably don't really care about laws to begin with. The risk level for LEOs remains the same regardless of any laws. And going in, those LEOs still have to assume the target is hot and weapons can/will be used against them until all persons and weapons are secure, and clear. IMO this changes nothing.
I think everybody needs to step back and not focus so much no-knock entry.
This is more to the standing at the door having a conversation and "Can we come in?" "Do you have a search warrant?" "No" "No" "We're comming in anyway." Fight on.
Before - after the owner was thumped around, smashed in the yard a few times, bounced off the side of the car, "Yeah, he tripped", charged and then released with a court date.
Now somebody is going to question the cops a little more.
The owner is still going to get thumped.
An unintended consequence of this law prolly puts a damper on home invaders posing as cops...at least in Indiana.
AngelsSix
06-12-2012, 19:08
Granted, I'm not an LEO, but my understanding of a "no knock" warrant is just that - you just go in.
That being said (and correct me if I am wrong) but it would seem to me that a no knock warrant would open you up to being shot as soon as you walk in the door.
I'm no fan of those few police who hide behind their badge on a power trip, but this just reeks of bad things to come.
The 'no knock' warrants are normally high risk regardless. Someone is going to try to shoot you when you go in the door, the point is to gain the tactical advantage and bea them to the drugs they are trying to hide or the guns they are going to shoot at you with.
This law doesn't make much sense to me personally, because anyone who enters my home uninvited is getting shot. Period. So who here is going to ask the LEO barging into their house if they are there legally? :rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
06-12-2012, 19:22
Nobody is above the law and I support the idea of this law.
That being said, there is the potential for problems.
Some idiot with a chip on his shoulder may try to "set up" an ambiguous circumstance.
The idiot could have a friend call in some sort of a fake emergency from a burner phone while the idiot lies in wait at home.
Nobody is above the law and I support the idea of this law.
That being said, there is the potential for problems.
Some idiot with a chip on his shoulder may try to "set up" an ambiguous circumstance.
The idiot could have a friend call in some sort of a fake emergency from a burner phone while the idiot lies in wait at home.
Like these? http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jun/7/picket-rep-marchant-demands-doj-investigation-blog/
Legislative summary and text of bill in this link:
http://legiscan.com/gaits/view/347918
As an aside - IMO - a no-knock warrant should be somewhat difficult to obtain - if this law forces authorities to quadruple or quintuple check it may serve a purpose.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TXGringo
06-12-2012, 20:29
I don't see much good in this. IMHO, this is just incentive for criminals to put up a fight instead of standing down. Defense lawyers will take every advantage of this that they can...
greenberetTFS
06-12-2012, 20:59
I'm with Pete on this one. There is and never will be a reason for any law enforcement officer to tactically enter my home. If they do they suffer the consequences.
I'm with Al and Pete on this one also........:eek:
Big Teddy :munchin
Streck-Fu
06-12-2012, 21:03
It is important to understand that this is a reaction to a ruling by the state supreme court that a citizen has not right to resist an officer entering illegally.
The idiot could have a friend call in some sort of a fake emergency from a burner phone while the idiot lies in wait at home.
Strong chance that the population will lose another idiot. ;)
Dozer523
06-13-2012, 07:40
So, one in Indiana can shoot an LEO for unlawful entry, but with a warrant, no knock or other, that same person faces attempted or capital murder charge.
IMO this changes nothing.The Warrant negates the illegal aspect of the legislation. Changes nothing is right. I'll even go so far as to opine there is no such thing as an illegal warrant.
Streck-Fu
06-13-2012, 07:55
The Warrant negates the illegal aspect of the legislation. Changes nothing is right.
I disagree.
This does change things.
If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.
What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.
I disagree.
This does change things.
If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.
What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.
Given all the different federal and state level organizations that now have SWAT teams (IRS, EPA etc), how the hell are we ever to know if we are being SWATTed for tax evasion, for not cleaning out our drainage ditch or for not returning a book to the library? In other words, one of these damn organizations can surely come up with something you are in violation of after the fact.
Dozer523
06-13-2012, 08:16
I disagree.
This does change things.
If an officer is entering legally, there is no protection for an occupant resisting that entry. That has not changed as long as the officer has done everything correctly.
What HAS changed is when an officer attempts an illegal entry and the occupant knows it to be illegal, it puts in place legal protections for resisting the illegal entry. This protects home owners in cases when the police get the wrong address, fail to verify an address, or are pursuing a suspect and just start kicking down doors in a search, etc.Well . . . I disagree right backatchoo:D
Attempting to serve a warrant to the wrong door doesn't make the warrant illegal. And it is unreasonable to react with gunfire to a knock on the door accompanied by the phrase, "Police, we have a warrant. Open the door." Even if it is the wrong door How ya gonna know til later anyway? As a general rule most people upon hearing that will probably open the door with a "okay, but . . . "
Nobody gets a freebie to shoot just cause "No way that warrant can really be for me (So a law abiding citizen is going to go all "Come and get me Copper"? I don't think so.) IMHO this most definately does not authorize the killing of a police officer who's only "crime" is to be land navigationally challenged.
I sort of invision something like the scene in Training Day when Denzel uses the church bullitin to gain access so he can rip of the bad guy. And we all know how that movie ended . . .
Streck-Fu
06-13-2012, 08:34
Well . . . I disagree right backatchoo:D
Attempting to serve a warrant to the wrong door doesn't make the warrant illegal. .
The warrant may be legal but if issued for 123 Main St and they kick the door down at 125 Main St, that would be an illegal search of the property at 125.
Oops, sorry that we destroyed your front door and shot your barking dog. Do you know if you neighbor is home by chance?
Yes, it happens often enough to be a legitimate problem.
IMHO this most definately does not authorize the killing of a police officer who's only "crime" is to be land navigationally challenged.
What about when the police kill the innocent occupant of the house they entered becasue they were land navigationally challenged? Rarely are there consequences for the offending officers.
And, again, this is less about resisting police issuing warrants and more about affirming the rights of citizens. The State Suprememe Court specifically wrote that a citizen has "no right to resist...." Is that acceptable to you?
As I understand things - in Indiana during an unlawful entry - citizens had limited or no protection prior to this legislation.
Post legislation - citizens can lawfully resist an unlawful entry into their residence...
Now, at least in the case of an UNLAWFUL entry a citizen who happens to wake up to his front door being caved in, and grabs the handgun on the nightstand, (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized) and wanders down the hall and is shot during an UNLAWFUL entry, has some rights and probally won't be prosecuted for brandishing. And, if he is, he might now have a defense.
I don't see much good in this. IMHO, this is just incentive for criminals to put up a fight instead of standing down. Defense lawyers will take every advantage of this that they can...
A criminal will not see the law as an obstacle to his wrongdoings regardless of that law.
I can't talk about civilian law enforcement, provided that I operate in the military side of the house, namely naval law enforcement.
That being said, no knock entries and any other course of action based on exigent circumstances should always be carefully employed in order not to cross the line between doing one's job and treading on a person's constitutional rights.
A supa troopa cop acting on his own ego-driven agenda will inevitably put himself in harm's way, law or no law. I'm in favour of the aforementioned law, since it will definitely make the supa troopaz think twice before they illegally enter somebody's place of abode.
Russell270
06-15-2012, 05:11
As a former LEO I served numerous search warrants and entered countless homes. The problem that I see with this law is that most people have no idea why the police entered their home until after all of the occupants had been secured. Most of the time all the occupants are secured without any physical force and the ones that did resist were usually the criminal we were after. I have conducted search warrants on homes of soldiers and LEO's to go after a 18-21 year old living in the residence that had been involved in criminal activity. The parents were clueless to the crimes that their child had been committing but we could not be sure of that so all parties were treated as possible threats until we secured the residence. It would have been terrible if one of the innocent parents had started shooting at the police and had turned the house into a war zone. Rarely a door is kicked in by a swat team that turns out to be a wrong house. LEO's are human it can happen. Sometimes it is something as minor as a typo or a swat guy went to the wrong side of a duplex. It is a mistake and when that happens the department fixes any damages to the property, makes a public apology and normally pays some restitution to the family. The department conducts an investigation to ensure it was an accident. I agree that there are bad cops out there as there are in any proffession. Every bad cop that I have ever met has been criminally charged and I am glad they were. It would be terrible for people to believe that every cop coming into their house should be shot at. Just my two cents.
Destrier
06-15-2012, 05:54
To me, the sound of breaking glass and a door being kicked down in the middle of the night sounds like a home invasion. In many reported incidents the invaders yelled, "police' as a method to overcome resistance quickly.
Since I am not out breaking laws the odds of a police no knock entry is damn slim if non existent.
On the off hand chance law enforcement got the address wrong and entered my home at 3am with a no knock..
You can bet my initial response would be as if I had a home invasion or another break in.
My rights should be protected if someone gets hurt and they are in the wrong by being in the wrong place wrong time wrong reason.
No one wants to see LEO's get hurt in pursuit of their duties. But I "john Q public" expect law enforcement to be 'very' certain when exercising a warrant. It should never be a fishing expedition hoping to find a bad guy.
From dozer ' "Police, we have a warrant. Open the door." Even if it is the wrong door How ya gonna know til later anyway? As a general rule most people upon hearing that will probably open the door with a "okay, but . . . "
I would tell them to hang on till my lawyer gets here. If they have not broken the door down. And I know it is the wrong door because I do not run around breaking laws. I bet allot of German citizens wish they had had the 4th Amendment before World War 2.
But I am not a LEO, just a guy in the middle of nowhere America with children to protect.
Streck-Fu
06-15-2012, 06:16
This sums it up very well.
LINK (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/15/restoring-the-right-of-self-defense-is-n)
Print|Email
Restoring the Right of Self-Defense Is Not a License to Kill Cops
Former Reason writer Radley Balko notes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions-_b_1596846.html)that various news outlets are misrepresenting recent changes (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/11/indiana-residents-can-now-defend-themsel)to Indiana's self-defense law as a license to kill cops. As Balko explains, the legislation, which Gov. Mitch Daniels signed last week, merely restores a common-law right that residents of the state had until last year, when the Indiana Supreme Court declared (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/18/no-right-to-resist-rogue-cops) "there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers." As I pointed out (http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/19/home-insecurity)at the time, that conclusion was completely unnecessary for resolving the case, which involved a domestic dispute where a woman called 911. She wanted the police to enter the apartment she shared with her husband, while he tried to stop them. Even if the officers did not have a resident's consent, the situation was such that the court could have concluded "exigent circumstances" justified their entry. Instead the court decided to nullify a principle of common law that is centuries old and arguably dates back to the Magna Carta because it considered this right of self-defense outmoded and apt to encourage violence.
As a result of that decision, the only option for someone confronted by a police officer's unlawful violence was to sit and take it, then challenge the trespass or other crime after the fact. This legally required passiviity applied not only to cases of mistaken searches (such as the Cory Maye case in Mississippi, chronicled (http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/the-case-of-cory-maye/singlepage)by Balko) but even to cases where cops knowingly break the law: A cop burglar or cop rapist could not be lawfully resisted, although he could be prosecuted after the fact.
Now that the right to reasonably resist police trespasses has been restored in Indiana, anyone using that defense still must show that his actions (including the level of force used as well as the decision to use force) were reasonable in the circumstances, as a defendant would have to show in any other case involving a claim of self-defense. As Mark Rutherford, chairman of the Indiana Public Defender Commission, tells Balko, the amendment "really just puts police officers on the same level as everyone else."
Streck-Fu
06-15-2012, 06:21
It would have been terrible if one of the innocent parents had started shooting at the police and had turned the house into a war zone.
That would be terrible. Maybe there are better ways to go about capturing someone than breaking down the door to the home of unsuspecting people that may put up a defense.
Rarely a door is kicked in by a swat team that turns out to be a wrong house.
Quite probably your experience but with the proliferation of SWAT teams throughout the US, especially into smaller communities, it is becomeing more common.
Rhod7520
06-15-2012, 08:43
Granted, I'm not an LEO, but my understanding of a "no knock" warrant is just that - you just go in.
That being said (and correct me if I am wrong) but it would seem to me that a no knock warrant would open you up to being shot as soon as you walk in the door.
I'm no fan of those few police who hide behind their badge on a power trip, but this just reeks of bad things to come.
Agreed.
I'm with Pete on this one. There is and never will be a reason for any law enforcement officer to tactically enter my home. If they do they suffer the consequences.
Exactly. There is no reason for my front (or back) door to come flying off it's hinges. I despise rhetoric following the line of "well I have nothing to hide, so what's the big deal?" Well, I have nothing to hide, because I have done nothing wrong, and therefore the police have no justifiable business occupying my private spaces, (be it residence, vehicle, pockets, anal cavity...)
No knock warrants open you up (as an LEO) to being shot anyway. That is why they wear body armor during these events. That being said, a google search will turn up a multitude of cases where no knock warrants resulted in gross abuses, needlessly put innocent civilians in harms way, or has been mentioned already, were served to the wrong address. Oops. This Law does not present a problem to no knock warrants. I say no knock warrants were a problem to begin with. We have given up too much on behalf of being protected from drug crime and such.
Pericles
06-15-2012, 15:04
I'm just not willing to be collateral damage in someone's war on whatever.
The purpose of my military service was to ensure our citizens (and I happen to be one) have the freedoms articulated by our Constitution, and if our Constitution inspires others to demand likewise from their governments, so much the better.
Equal justice under law - what a quaint notion.
The Reaper
06-15-2012, 15:12
You know, if you want to talk to someone, you could just call and ask them down to the police station. You could surveil the house to prevent an escape. Remember Waco?
If you want to arrest me, just call or send me a letter telling me when to report. I'll be there a few minutes early with my attorney.
If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. If you are on a tight schedule, I understand. Just give me a minute to get the family and pets secured and do your thing. Just put it back like it was when you are done looking. Respect is a two way street.
If you show up in uniform with no warrant and ask to search, the answer is going to be "No." I don't have anything to hide, but I believe in the 4th Amendment. You cuff me up and search it anyway, I think I am going to see if I can get you fired, if not incarcerated, and I suspect that my lawyer is going to make out well on the civil suit for violating my rights.
If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.
I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?
TR
Dozer523
06-16-2012, 08:29
If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. TR Serve coffee and cookies on the front porch. That's neighborly. Good plan. (really) I'm building a porch.
The Reaper
06-16-2012, 10:24
Serve coffee and cookies on the front porch. That's neighborly. Good plan. (really) I'm building a porch.
Never hurts to ask nicely.
You have a lot of coffee already this morning?:D
TR
Team Sergeant
06-16-2012, 17:34
If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.
I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?
TR
Could not agree more. My plan involves the repelling a minimum of at least four armed individuals. Home invasions are very common here in Arizona and they have been known to dress as police. I would feel bad afterwards if it was a real swat team hitting the wrong house but that's part of the saying, "sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the windshield".
DesertRat
06-16-2012, 18:30
Excuse me Mr Downs, did I just here you right? Bounty?
How about just follow the law.
You seem to put a bounty on everyone on the other side of the door your SWAT Team just kicked in - regardless of if it's the right door or not.
How about just follow the law.
While most of the focus appears to be on no-knock entry - the gist of the new law is that having a badge is no excuse for breaking the law - however you do it. A person doing nothing wrong and is assaulted has a right to defend themselves. So some off duty LEO wants to puff himself up in a bar and flash his badge and start slapping people around. This law comes down on the side of the victim of the assault.
Truth
You know, if you want to talk to someone, you could just call and ask them down to the police station. You could surveil the house to prevent an escape. Remember Waco?
If you want to arrest me, just call or send me a letter telling me when to report. I'll be there a few minutes early with my attorney.
If you have a warrant and want to search my home, stop by during daylight hours, and I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and drink a cup of coffee while we wait for my legal counsel to arrive. If you are on a tight schedule, I understand. Just give me a minute to get the family and pets secured and do your thing. Just put it back like it was when you are done looking. Respect is a two way street.
If you show up in uniform with no warrant and ask to search, the answer is going to be "No." I don't have anything to hide, but I believe in the 4th Amendment. You cuff me up and search it anyway, I think I am going to see if I can get you fired, if not incarcerated, and I suspect that my lawyer is going to make out well on the civil suit for violating my rights.
If you show up in the middle of the night and crash my door, a series of unfortunate events are going to follow that will tie at least one of us up for a long time. A home invasion can look exactly like a no-knock service, and I have a contingency plan for repelling boarders. I suspect that you do as well, and would execute on the same circumstances, so think about it.
I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?
TR
TR
Here is a sign to hang at each entry door at the house. It might make it clear before they bash the door down.;)
TR
Here is a sign to hang at each entry door at the house. It might make it clear before they bash the door down.;)
I've only lived here in SE AZ for about 6 months but, from what I've seen, the LEO's (and everybody else for that matter) are very respectful of the citizens. The only place I've seen a "No Weapons" sign was in the DMV (or whatever they call it here) and it was not at the entrance to the public area, but outside the door to the employee entrance. :D
Pat
Dozer523
06-17-2012, 05:51
Never hurts to ask nicely.
You have a lot of coffee already this morning?:D
TRThat's kinda like a beer question. Depends?
Having admitted nothing I still think you're right.:D
Minneapolis cop charged in Andover bar fight; self-defense claimed; victim improves
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_20883082/man-allegedly-assaulted-by-minneapolis-police-officer-at?source=most_viewed
"....Meanwhile, the officer -- Sgt. David Clifford, 47, of Andover, who was charged Monday with third-degree assault -- claimed he acted in self-defense. ........."
&
"......Video surveillance shows Clifford approaching Vander Lee and punching him, said Cmdr. Paul Sommer, spokesman for the Anoka County sheriff's office.
Sommer said Vander Lee was on a cellphone at the time of the attack. ........"
&
"........He has no disciplinary actions that have been sustained. But Clifford was one of three Minneapolis SWAT team officers named as defendants in a civil rights lawsuit brought by a woman who was severely burned in a botched 2010 raid.
The woman, Rickia Russell, and the city settled the suit for $1 million in November.
The suit alleged Clifford instructed officer Craig Taylor to "deploy a flash-bang grenade immediately upon entry" into an apartment where police suspected crack cocaine was being sold. The grenade went off under Russell's legs, causing third-degree burns. As she screamed in pain, officers ordered her to lie on the floor as they handcuffed her.
Russell spent two weeks in the burn unit of Hennepin County Medical Center.
Police found no evidence of any drugs in the apartment. ..............."
Man does this story touch on a lot of things mentioned in this thread.
Streck-Fu
06-19-2012, 07:43
Along the similar theme of Police Officers entering homes, the 9th Circuit Court published a decision on conduct during such entries. In this case, it is the DEA rather than local SWAT.
DEA, while raiding wrong home, pulls 11 and 14 year old girls from bed at gunpoint, yelling and swearing at them, and handcuff them.
It takes 2 hours to realize they are at wrong home and leave. Family sues...lower court says DEA can jack up your kids for fun while 9th overturns.
9th does still support breaking into the wrong house as long as the cops claim to think that it is the right house.
My biggest issue with this is...how and why can out troops on a real war zone conduct house raids in a fashion that is less brutal to women and children? How often do our Soldiers scream profanities at pre-teen kids at gun point while cuffing them?
If our troops can do this, how can our LEOs treat our own citizens so much worse?
LINK (http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/18/ninth-circuit-to-dea-putting-a-gun-to-an#fold)
At 7 a.m. on January 20, 2007, DEA agents battered down the door to Thomas and Rosalie Avina’s mobile home in Seeley, California, in search of suspected drug trafficker Louis Alvarez. Thomas Avina met the agents in his living room and told them they were making a mistake. Shouting “Don’t you fvcking move,” the agents forced Thomas Avina to the floor at gunpoint, and handcuffed him and his wife, who had been lying on a couch in the living room. As the officers made their way to the back of the house, where the Avina’s 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters were sleeping, Rosalie Avina screamed, “Don’t hurt my babies. Don’t hurt my babies.”
The agents entered the 14-year-old girl’s room first, shouting “Get down on the fvcking ground.” The girl, who was lying on her bed, rolled onto the floor, where the agents handcuffed her. Next they went to the 11-year-old’s room. The girl was sleeping. Agents woke her up by shouting “Get down on the fvcking ground.” The girl’s eyes shot open, but she was, according to her own testimony, “frozen in fear.” So the agents dragged her onto the floor. While one agent handcuffed her, another held a gun to her head.
Moments later the two daughters were carried into the living room and placed next to their parents on the floor while DEA agents ransacked their home. After 30 minutes, the agents removed the children’s handcuffs. After two hours, the agents realized they had the wrong house—the product of a sloppy license plate transcription—and left.
In 2008, the Avinas—mom, dad, and both daughters—filed a federal suit against the DEA for excessive use of force, assault, and battery in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. That court ruled in favor of the DEA, and the Avinas appealed. Last week, the family got justice.
While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defended the agents' rough treatment of Thomas and Rosalie, it also declared that yanking the Avina children of their beds and putting guns to their heads did, in fact, constitute the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
"A jury could find that the agents pointed their guns at the head of an eleven-year-old girl, 'like they were going to shoot [her],' while she lay on the floor in handcuffs, and that it was excessive for them to do so," reads the Ninth Circuit's decision, which was filed June 12. "Similarly, a jury could find that the agents’ decision to force the two girls to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs was unreasonable."
More from the decision:
Under our case law, an issue of material fact exists as to whether the actions of the agents were excessive in light of the ages of B.S.A. (age eleven) and B.F.A. (age fourteen) and the limited threat they posed. See Tekle, 511 F.3d 839 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on excessive force claim where officers pointed guns at an eleven-year-old boy’s head during the arrest of the boy’s father); Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (holding that officer’s act of pointing a gun at an infant during the search of a gang member’s house was objectively unreasonable); see also McDonald ex rel. McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 294-95 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that officer’s act of pointing his gun at a nine-year-old’s head during the search of home was excessive use of force). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for assault and battery.
In a footnote, the court wrote:
Although there is evidence that the agents released the girls from their handcuffs once they realized how young they were, there is also evidence that the agents knew, prior to entering the girls’ bedrooms, that the girls were children. Rosalie testified that, as the agents were heading towards the girls’ rooms, she screamed at the agents several times, “Don’t hurt my babies.” Moreover, one of the agents testified at his deposition that, when he first saw one of the girls (presumably the older of the two girls), she appeared to be “12 [or] 13 years old.”
The ruling concludes:
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Avinas, a rational trier of fact could find that agents engaged in “extreme or outrageous” conduct when the agents: (1) pointed their guns at the head of eleven-year-old B.S.A. “like they were going to shoot [her]” while B.S.A. was lying on the floor in handcuffs; (2) forced eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to lie face down on the floor with their hands cuffed behind their backs; (3) left B.S.A. and B.F.A. in handcuffs for half an hour; and (4) yelled at eleven-year-old B.S.A. and fourteen-year-old B.F.A. to “[g]et down on the f[uck]ing ground.” See Tekle, 511 F.3d at 856 (holding that officers were not entitled to summary judgment on claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress where officers pointed guns at eleven-year old’s head during the arrest of the eleven-year-old’s father); see also id. at 859 (Fisher, J., concurring). Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States on B.F.A.’s and B.S.A.’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As a side note: While this raid was conducted under President George W. Bush, the deputy administrator of the DEA at that time was Michele Leonhart. She is now the administrator of the DEA, thanks to an appointment by President Barack Obama. Furthermore, the Obama Administration could have declined to defend the DEA in this case. Instead, Obama's Justice Department has decided to make the case that federal agents should be allowed to hold guns to the heads of children.
Full court decision: here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/06/12/11-55004.pdf)
Treatment of the adults was Kosher but they were excessive toward the kids. No consideration for how they entered the wrong house becasue they wrote down a tag number incorrectly. Apparently, raiding the wrong house is still ok as long as the officers think it is the right house.
And it begs the question, what is a legal or illegal entry ?
My biggest issue with this is...how and why can out troops on a real war zone conduct house raids in a fashion that is less brutal to women and children? How often do our Soldiers scream profanities at pre-teen kids at gun point while cuffing them?
If our troops can do this, how can our LEOs treat our own citizens so much worse?
Some US soldiers have done terrible things overseas, and some LEO's have done terrible things here. It's about professionalism. That DEA team obviously didn't act professionally. I wouldn't lump all groups in together. Our team prides itself in our ability to escalate and deescalate appropriately. We are the masters of de-escalation. Some teams unfortunately dont behave in this manner because they have that "chip"..."I'm a big bad SWAT guy, look, I have the tshirt to prove it.
I look at this decision differently, not so much on the no knock issue. I look at it more from a patrol officers standpoint, and similar to what this case addresses. A police officer responding to a domestic violence call, in most circumstances, has a right to enter the home without a warrant, under the exigent circumstances exception, in order to ensure the safety of the occupants of the home. The problem I see is that many people don't understand this. Some people are uneducated or ignorant to the laws. I can't even count how many times I've been told by a suspect, "you can't do that, you're violating my rights." Now you are giving these people the right to kill police officers because they THINK their rights are being violated.
TR makes a very valid point about alternatives to search warrants, such as a surveillance until the "bad guy" leaves, then pulling him over with a police car. Much safer for all involved. Conducting a search warrant when you know a police officer or a highly trained soldier lives there is not a bright idea. We would use alternative methods for that scenario. I would also be arming myself and shooting people who come bursting through my door in the middle of the night. I agree with other comments that it comes with the territory. However, allowing someone to knowingly and legally shoot a police officer, that blows me away. I don't think we've seen the last of this case.
BTW, in AZ and other states, it is unlawful to resist a law enforcement officer whether or not you believe the arrest to be lawful. The reason is to prevent harm to both sides involved.
I assume that the legitimate purpose of a no-knock, nighttime, door kicking visit is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or suspects from escaping. If you turn off the water, cover the exits, and knock, what are you going to miss?
TR
The reason for a no-knock, nighttime warrant is based off of violence potential of the suspect. That is what a judge needs evidence of in order to issue such a warrant. The theory is that the suspect will likely be asleep, and slower to react to their doors and windows being crashed in. This limits the ability to arm themselves and shoot the officers...that's the theory anyway. A judge could also issue a nighttime warrant if there is reason to believe the evidence could be leaving before daytime hours. For instance, at 11 pm investigators get information that there is a large amount of drugs in the house, and a truck will be arriving at 2am to pick up the drugs and drive them to another state.
Evidence can be flushed, burned, shredded, defaced, or deleted.
I wish all drug dealers, murderers, rapists etc were as nice as you TR!
A search of the NRA's website, and of the actual bill from the State of Indiana finds that the bill has been hugely misrepresented on blogs and "news" sites. Nowhere in the bill does it authorize deadly force against law enforcement officers. In fact, top law enforcement officials and organizations in Indiana praised the bill.
The following is an excerpt from the bill.
SENATE BILL No. 1
****A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 35-41-3-2.5; (12)SB0001.1.1. --> ****SECTION 1. IC*35-41-3-2.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 2.5. (a) The purpose of this section is to protect citizens from unlawful entry into their homes by law enforcement officers or persons pretending to be law enforcement officers. Both citizens and law enforcement officers benefit from clear guidance about the parameters of lawful home entry, which will reduce the potential for violence and respect the privacy and property of citizens.
****(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
********(1) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
********(2) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents object to the entry.
********(3) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in
hot pursuit.
********(4) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
********(5) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.
****(c) A person may use force in accordance with this section to prevent or terminate a law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person's immediate family under one (1) or more of the following conditions:
********(1) The person does not have actual knowledge that the officer is a law enforcement officer, and the officer:
************(A) has not identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
************(B) is not wearing a distinctive uniform or badge of authority.
********(2) The law enforcement officer is not engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer's official duty.
****(d) A person may use reasonable force, including physical force, against a person described in subsection (c)(1), if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
****(e) A person may not use physical force against a law enforcement officer described in subsection (c)(2) unless the person has no adequate alternative to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry into the dwelling.
****(f) A person who is justified in using force under this section is not required to retreat.
Streck-Fu
06-20-2012, 05:32
In fact, top law enforcement officials and organizations in Indiana praised the bill.
Not in local conversation....
LINK (http://www.indystar.com/article/20120221/NEWS05/202210326)
Prosecutor and police groups have objected to a list of limited situations in which officers can legally enter a private home, which was included in the bill the Senate approved 45-5 last month.
Destrier
06-20-2012, 15:11
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/14/teen-dies-after-struggle-with-off-duty-md-officer/?intcmp=obinsite
Maybe the kid should have resisted.
The Reaper
06-20-2012, 19:39
Well, lookie here!
What harm could come of this?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/06/sen-chambliss-demands-doj-investigation-of-attacks-against-political-commentators
Just start calling SWAT on people you don't like till someone messes up. Doesn't matter which side.
Someone should go to prison for a long time for this.
TR
BigJimCalhoun
07-10-2012, 18:49
Here is a story of where a 92 year-old woman shot a police officer.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8432
Cliff Notes:
Ohio - not Indiana
She calls police about burglary
Police officer breaks into her house instead of knocking.
She thinks he is a burglar and shoots him
Police officer will live
Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door
FDLE looking into deputy-involved shooting
WESH.com
Orlando
UPDATED 4:32 PM EDT Jul 16, 2012
http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door/-/11788162/15527202/-/euk6tg/-/index.html