Spotsylvania Sheriff's Department Executes "No-Knock" Warrant

Officer safety overrides reasonable just about every time. The reasonable officer "standard" and QI buttresses officer safety claims. Terry v. Ohio permits a cop to use a mere hunch to violate our individual rights.

The incident in Wichita Kansas is another example of cops, every one of them at the scene getting it wrong and doing wrong then being absolved of any accountability. Imagine this, 10 or so cops looking at the same alleged perp moving his hands contrary to "orders" and only one kills the alleged perp. Entry into your castle (no-knock) is not required for cops to violate your castle walls and kill you by mistake.

Lesson learned? You will be killed by cops at the whim of those cops and you survivors, if any, will need to seek redress...good luck...

user said:

....
So, as the law of Virginia was in 1607, "a man's home is his castle, and he has as much right to defend his castle as the king does his own." Semayne's Case, Court of King's Bench, 1603.......

Click to expand...

Many believe that an "An eye for an eye" is the law of retaliation. But, an eye for an eye meant equal. A poor man's eye is of equal value to the king's eye, hence, a man's home is his castle.

OC for ME said:

Officer safety overrides reasonable just about every time. The reasonable officer "standard" and QI buttresses officer safety claims. Terry v. Ohio permits a cop to use a mere hunch to violate our individual rights......

Click to expand...

Incorrect, reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

color of law said:

Many believe that an "An eye for an eye" is the law of retaliation. But, an eye for an eye meant equal. A poor man's eye is of equal value to the king's eye, hence, a man's home is his castle.

Click to expand...

I do not necessarily subscribe to that connection leading to "a man's home is his castle."

Seems to me that the "law of retaliation" or punishment is what was intended - at least as taught by most (all?) Christian religions.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-38.htm

LE spends good money on battering rams. Should they be expected to just let them sit, unused, at the station?

What about their guns and ammo. Should they let them go bad or should they get them out and shoot some people?

What about fast patrol cars? Should they stop recklessly chasing people for slow and go at stop signs and waste those vehicles, just because they might occasionally create multi-car collisions?

What about chasing random people? It creates a reason to make a felony arrest because fleeing from LE is a felony.

What about stop and ID? I mean LEO's gotta eat just like the criminals.

Maverick9 said:

LE spends good money on battering rams. Should they be expected to just let them sit, unused, at the station?

What about their guns and ammo. Should they let them go bad or should they get them out and shoot some people?

What about fast patrol cars? Should they stop recklessly chasing people for slow and go at stop signs and waste those vehicles, just because they might occasionally create multi-car collisions?

What about chasing random people? It creates a reason to make a felony arrest because fleeing from LE is a felony.

What about stop and ID? I mean LEO's gotta eat just like the criminals.

Click to expand...

All these questions just lead to more questions. But, the most important question is how did you ask these questions without using smiley faces?

color of law said:

All these questions just lead to more questions. But, the most important question is how did you ask these questions without using smiley faces?

Click to expand...

Not all faces are smiley faces.

My way is to simply insert the disclaimer (sarcasm) or similar at the end of the reply.

color of law said:

Incorrect, reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

Click to expand...

That is the "rule." I am confident that hunches are accepted by prosecutors and judges far more than the rule should allow.

TFred said:

I provide this as only one of what I'm sure are likely many more data points available, but it seems to be relevant. Perhaps User can provide some context with regard to the legal situation today.

TFred


JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Johnson v. Commonwealth

213 Va. 102 (1972)

JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 7920.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

June 12, 1972.

Present, Snead, C.J., I'Anson, Carrico, Harrison, Cochran and Harman, JJ.

No knock entry under exigent circumstances approved. When armed with proper warrant to search for drugs, police officers knew door to apartment was protected with two locks and that persons seeking entry were placed under surveillance. They knew that drugs were being stored there and dispensed from the kitchen from a point only 3 to 4 feet from a bathroom where narcotics could be and had been disposed of in the past.

....

Click to expand...

See the dichotomy I'm talking about - this is a search-and-seizure case, not a trespass case. The cops were wrong to enter the house that way, but that issue was not before the court. So what this court said about "no knock entry" having been "approved" is "mere dicta" - no precedential value because it had nothing to do with the holding in the case. In my opinion, for reasons stated earlier regarding Virginia's status as a common law state, the court had no authority under Virginia law to approve a method of execution that involved illegal entry. If it had been brought up during trial, the judge would have said, "Counselor, the police are not on trial here. Your client is on trial. Do you have a defense to the charge?"

The question was whether the unlawful entry tainted the search-and-seizure. The answer is as I said before, it does not, because it has nothing to do with why the cops were in the house or how they got there; but being in the house and having reason to believe things or persons needed to be searched or seized, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment as to that.

Here's another wrinkle - the Virginia Supreme Court has abdicated all responsibility for understanding and applying the Bill of Rights and equivalent provisions of the Virginia Constitution, taking the position that whatever the federal courts decide will be truth for Virginians. And the Fourth Amendment is federal constitutional law, not Virginia law; and the feds' interpret such things in the least restrictive way possible, setting, as it were, minimum standards for the states. Virginia's position reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family", where Edith is going to appear in a commercial and Archie is negotiating with the producer, who said, "Of course we won't pay her minimum.", implying that she'd get more than the minimum required pay for the appearance. "Oh, no!", Archie said, "We insist on minimum!!!". The Virginia Courts are insisting on minimum. What's right and just is not at issue, only adherence to minimum standards as prescribed by the feds. So that's as to the Fourth Amendment. The problem is that the castle doctrine is a matter of state law. And because our courts have set the bar so low, enforcing the state's rights against the citizens rather than the citizens' rights against the state, there is no consideration of illegal entry in the search and seizure logic.

In my view, the homeowner and/or person arrested would have a cause of action against the cops and the municipality for the trespass, and the damages would be all that resulted from the illegal entry, including the trial and any sentence to be served. And that's simply a matter of compensation for an injury suffered, not justification for criminal acts. The conviction stands. Realistically, that is not going to happen, though, and that's just a matter of politics and a stupid electorate.

color of law said:

All these questions just lead to more questions. But, the most important question is how did you ask these questions without using smiley faces?

Click to expand...

I would have but I can guarantee you that many LEO see these as valid questions, maybe in a slightly different twist.

They have battering ram and feel entitled to use them; their mere presence means they should use them, and we know they've used them without due diligence when batting down the WRONG door. Neither do they feel any need to replace the wrong doors they batter down.

Likewise with bullets. They shoot because they were given semi-autos with 11-19 rounds. In the old days with 5-shot revolvers you think people didn't do things like call for back up or work with partners so they'd have additional options other than KILLING people?

Driving after a car that really hasn't committed a crime, perhaps went over the yellow line briefly - now they feel compelled to chase at high speeds, often against policy, because now they see a chance to make a high-money bust on an extremely minor issue.

Same thing with people running. What is wrong with running if you have not committed a crime? Maybe the person has a need to run off that is not 'illegal'. Does that give the cop the right to shoot them? I mean in the cop's mind, YES - they're evading. They'll come up with justification later.

How do they justify shooting a person 'wanted for questioning' which is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor. Yet they figure out a reason to shoot this guy in the Walmart parking lot 24 times, wounding his girlfriend.

Oh, and they came up with a reason - he backed into a cop car. But WHY would cop cars box him in when they could safely go to his house and question him in the daylight. A person wanted for questioning if not committing a crime can refuse, after all. We don't want that, right?

Grapeshot said:

Posted by color of law
Many believe that an "An eye for an eye" is the law of retaliation. But, an eye for an eye meant equal. A poor man's eye is of equal value to the king's eye, hence, a man's home is his castle.

Click to expand...

I do not necessarily subscribe to that connection leading to "a man's home is his castle."

Seems to me that the "law of retaliation" or punishment is what was intended - at least as taught by most (all?) Christian religions.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-38.htm

Click to expand...

Just a Note:

Constructing a constitution that provided special protection for the home was of paramount importance to the Framers. James Otis, a prominent lawyer from colonial Massachusetts, declared in 1761 that “one of the most essential branches of English liberty, is the freedom of one’s house,” and the Supreme Court has noted that “[t]he zealous and frequent repetition of the adage that a ‘man’s house is his castle,’ made it abundantly clear” that the colonists attached certain enhanced rights to individuals within their own homes. Drawing on a conception of liberty that predated the Founding, the drafters of the Bill of Rights saw the walls of the home as impenetrable to otherwise legitimate regulation. In other words, early constitutional rights were “inextricably enmeshed with the home privacy castle doctrine.”

The Framers’ intent to safeguard the home pervades the Bill of Rights. Some examples are obvious: both the Third and Fourth Amendments mention the home explicitly, and (perhaps unsurprisingly) courts have used cases litigating those provisions to articulate a special concern for the sanctity of the home.

Click to expand...

See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 (1980). The maxim that “a man’s house is his castle” is derived from early-seventeenth-century English common law.

Is a "no-knock warrant" thus an exercise in tyranny? Abso-f'ing-lutely.

Click to expand...

User, really enjoyed reading about this and the "castle" background. I think much of what goes on in courts is BS, but you were obviously one of the true heroes in that realm. We do live under tyranny now to a large extent, but most people never notice.

Officer safety overrides reasonable just about every time. The reasonable officer "standard" and QI buttresses officer safety claims. Terry v. Ohio permits a cop to use a mere hunch to violate our individual rights.

Click to expand...

OC, that's true. If America ever returns to freedom, it will require holding law enforcement officers responsible for crimes just like anyone else, and bureaucrats too, ending the first class (gov/elite) and 2nd class (others) citizen caste system we have now. Otherwise corruption reigns.

I've been a big supporter of LE by the way, even donated to them when they were having a difficult time and there was a lot of violence against police. I've done everything I could to help them. But some take our support for granted and just never learn that they would get a lot more of the respect they desire if they would only clean up their acts!

OC for ME said:

That is the "rule." I am confident that hunches are accepted by prosecutors and judges far more than the rule should allow.

Click to expand...

More than likely true. But, to stop that from happening you need a damn good attorney. And, those are few and far between.

OC for ME said:

Officer safety overrides reasonable just about every time. The reasonable officer "standard" and QI buttresses officer safety claims. Terry v. Ohio permits a cop to use a mere hunch to violate our individual rights.

Click to expand...

We must be reading different versions of Terry v. Ohio.
The one I'm familiar with says "... And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, supra..."

color of law said:

More than likely true. But, to stop that from happening you need a damn good attorney. And, those are few and far between.

Click to expand...

Echo that! And a greater problem that affects all service professions at the "just plain folks" market level is the implied inability to pay for good quality service. So doctors, lawyers, dentists, HVAC mechanics, plumbers, electricians - won't tell you what all your potential options are because they need to price their services to a level that Joe Average can afford to pay, which means they won't provide work beyond that assumed level. Hence the divorce-mill-slash-and-burn domestic relations lawyers, the criminal defense plea-bargain factories, and the personal injury / disability / med mal professional claim settlers. And why the HVAC installer will sell you a Goodman furnace instead of recommending a Trane.

To my mind (adopting a Seventeenth Century common law standard), a "professional" is someone who undertakes to provide a service to the best of his ability, regardless of whether he's paid or not, or how much he's paid. But frankly, people who are in the business of helping people at the lower levels of the social pyramid have to make enough money to be able to afford to be in that line of work. And the average WalMart Shopper just plain can't afford decent services. So we have institutionalized systems for ripping off just plain folks and pretending it is, for example, "due process".

user said:

Echo that! And a greater problem that affects all service professions at the "just plain folks" market level is the implied inability to pay for good quality service. So doctors, lawyers, dentists, HVAC mechanics, plumbers, electricians - won't tell you what all your potential options are because they need to price their services to a level that Joe Average can afford to pay, which means they won't provide work beyond that assumed level. Hence the divorce-mill-slash-and-burn domestic relations lawyers, the criminal defense plea-bargain factories, and the personal injury / disability / med mal professional claim settlers. And why the HVAC installer will sell you a Goodman furnace instead of recommending a Trane.

To my mind (adopting a Seventeenth Century common law standard), a "professional" is someone who undertakes to provide a service to the best of his ability, regardless of whether he's paid or not, or how much he's paid. But frankly, people who are in the business of helping people at the lower levels of the social pyramid have to make enough money to be able to afford to be in that line of work. And the average WalMart Shopper just plain can't afford decent services. So we have institutionalized systems for ripping off just plain folks and pretending it is, for example, "due process".

Click to expand...

I could not have said it better. There are, however, a very few defence attorneys that have lived a meager life to defend the innocent. Yes, I mean the innocent. I have donated thousands of paralegal work to such an attorney. He is also fortunate to have a landlord who allows his rent to not be paid for months at a time. He has been blessed to have a few friends that have made sure he stays afloat. We have never lost a gun case where the person was in compliance with the law, innocent. One plea bargain. Plea bargains are not wins.

Attorneys were despised at the founding of this country. In 1814 congress tried to pass a tax on all attorneys. It didn't pass, but they tried.

INCOME TAX.
COMMUNICATED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 3, 1814.​

Mr. Eppes, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred a resolution of the House of Representatives, instructing them to inquire into the "expediency of laying a duty on all salaried officers, and on the professional income of lawyers, solicitors, and counsellors, and on the legal proceedings of courts of justice," made the following report:

That a tax upon salaries can only be expedient and proper under arbitrary Governments, where pensions and places are bestowed without a just regard to the public interest. In the United States, according to the principles of our Government, no salary can be allowed except as a compensation for public service, a tax operates as a deduction from the salary, and such a tax so far as respects the officers of the United States, would be an admission on the part of the Legislative body, that, in fixing the salaries of their public officers, the public interest had been disregarded, and more than a just compensation allowed. Without deciding whether in some instances this may not be the case, the committee are of opinion that if the evil exists, the proper constitutional remedy is not a tax, but a reduction of the salaries. The second member of the resolution embraces the income of lawyers, solicitors, and counsellors. The selection of a particular class of tile community, which already pays in common with others, a tax on property and on consumption, and imposing on it an income tax from which every other class is exempted, would be a departure from that system of equal and exact justice, which ought to form the basis of legislation in a free country. The third member of the resolution proposes a tax on the legal proceedings of courts. This tax, if confined to the courts of tile United States, would be unproductive. If extended to the State courts, difficult in the collection. It would fall principally on the necessitous and unfortunate, and produce collision with the State authorities. Upon the whole it is considered inexpedient to resort to either of the proposed taxes. The following resolution is, therefore, submitted:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to impose a duty on salaried officers, on tile income of lawyers, or on the proceedings of courts at law.

Click to expand...

Fallschirmjäger said:

We must be reading different versions of Terry v. Ohio.
The one I'm familiar with says "... And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, supra..."

Click to expand...

Entitled to draw from his experiences? Is this like cops pulling you over for no particularized reason other than you are in a "high crime" area when they think you should not be? You being where a cop thinks you should not be based on his experiences is a different conversation.

Terry v. Ohio entitles cops to use their "experiences" to violate your rights based only on a their hunch.

OC for ME said:

Entitled to draw from his experiences? Is this like cops pulling you over for no particularized reason other than you are in a "high crime" area when they think you should not be? You being where a cop thinks you should not be based on his experiences is a different conversation.

Terry v. Ohio entitles cops to use their "experiences" to violate your rights based only on a their hunch.

Click to expand...

Getting hunched can be painful...

OC for ME said:

Entitled to draw from his experiences? Is this like cops pulling you over for no particularized reason other than you are in a "high crime" area when they think you should not be? You being where a cop thinks you should not be based on his experiences is a different conversation.

Terry v. Ohio entitles cops to use their "experiences" to violate your rights based only on a their hunch.

Click to expand...

Your critical reading skills are lacking; that's pretty much the opposite of the Supreme Courts decision in Terry.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Your critical reading skills are lacking; that's pretty much the opposite of the Supreme Courts decision in Terry.

Click to expand...

McFadden did not seize Terry et al for loitering as he had the authority to do. Nope McFadded just snatched those fellas up and searched them for no lawful reason other than on his hunch that them fellas was ups to no good. McFadden didn't have any facts to support stopping them fellas at all. McFadden had a chance to follow the law of the land and he chose not to. SCOTUS sided with a law breaking cop. SCOTUS has continued that tradition of siding with law breaking cops!

Ask any cop if he thinks Terry is good "law." I'll be surprised if you find one that will admit that Terry is bad "law" and he would not use it while in the course of his duties.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1#writing-USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZD