• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"DEA" raids wrong Marysville home

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
And a no-knock warrant is a warrant.

Yes, and so is a patently unconstitutional "sneak and peek "warrant. Still a warrant, still issued by a judge, acting under color of law. Still an affront to the Constitution and freedom.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
Too bad we can't hang claymore mines on the inside of our front doors, activated only by someone kicking in the door.

You CAN hook up a multi head propane powered heater with electronic ignition, with jets strategically placed to heat up the area immediately in front of the door to say... 800*..... for about 20$ in parts...

:D
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I must have missed something. Where does it say you have to anounce your presence? Police frequently do anounce themselves before making entry anyways. And a no-knock warrant is a warrant.

You have to go deeper into the history of search warrants and their execution to find where things went off the rails. None of the Bill of Rights, except maybe the 3rd Amendment (quartering troops in homes), really conveys all the nuances in the plain text of the Amendment.

In times past, search warrants could only be executed during daylight hours. I happen to think this was a great way to avoid getting citizens into armed conflict with government agents who could be mistaken for criminals, getting both sides hurt.

In times past, the warrant was presented to the search-ee. Today, in some jurisdictions, the warrant need not even be on the scene if I recall.

Around the time of the Founding, in some states, a magistrate who improperly issued a search warrant was liable for triple damages, as well as the searcher.

The previous was meant to be conceptual and due to foggy recall may not be precisely accurate in all particulars. But, it conveys an overall concept.

The courts have been slowly eroding our protections for decades. Or, more precisely, police lacking a strict rule against some trick or tactic did what they wanted and then sometimes the courts would sanction it after the fact. No-kock warrants and even high-risk warrants are part of that.

You also have the whole angle of give an inch, and police will take two inches. For example, there have been many cases of the "knock" not being heard, sometimes by innocents in the very room. Pay attention to that. It wasn't a criminal trying to weasel out of something who said it wasn't heard; it was an innocent who was on the wrong end of the mistaken warrant. So, there is evidence that police when required to knock aren't exactly doing a whole lot to make sure the occupants know it is the police on the outside.

You have a number of variations on the theme of the occupant not recognizing it is police. The guy was asleep. He was downstairs watching TV. He was (insert reason here).

A really, really big reason this is coming up is because so many low-risk search warrants are now being executed by SWAT. Hey, these guys and their training has to be used somewhere. The increase in the number of SWAT teams is astounding. As is the the number of times they're used.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bang on a door, yell police a couple times, wait 10 -12 seconds and then pound the door down, there are going to be plenty of circumstances where people just don't know for sure its the cops coming through the door because they were asleep, in the bath, watching TV with the volume loud, etc., etc, etc.

People are dying. Pet dogs are being shot, sometimes even when they're tied up. Innocent families are being terrorized. And there is rarely an apology for any mistakes.

You wouldn't think it would take language in a constitutional amendment to conduct searches only in daylight. Nor, a solid knock and wait until the owner appeared. You'd think decency or tradition would cover it.

But, here is the crucial point, I believe. Announcing your presence, showing a warrant, waiting for the owner to step aside prove one thing--that the citizen is recognized as such and is being given a chance to willingly submit to the authority granted in the warrant. These raids undercut all that. These raids say, "You will comply NOW!" while there is a gun in your face and somebody else is throwing your daughter to the floor. Involuntary submission to force, without the chance to voluntarily submit. They don't care whether you have time to consider that there is lawful authority behind it. They don't want you to comply of your own will to a warrant exhibited. They want you to comply with the guns and the tasers. NOW! DO IT NOW!! That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset behind these raids.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
"Where does it say you have to anounce your presence?"

"I think in many ways I am still in a combat/military mindset."

These two statements are why you should not be involved in law enforcement.

BTW Anyone can shout police while kickking in your door.

Also My daughter-in-law is a LEO.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
You have to go deeper into the history of search warrants and their execution to find where things went off the rails. None of the Bill of Rights, except maybe the 3rd Amendment (quartering troops in homes), really conveys all the nuances in the plain text of the Amendment.

In times past, search warrants could only be executed during daylight hours. I happen to think this was a great way to avoid getting citizens into armed conflict with government agents who could be mistaken for criminals, getting both sides hurt.

In times past, the warrant was presented to the search-ee. Today, in some jurisdictions, the warrant need not even be on the scene if I recall.

Around the time of the Founding, in some states, a magistrate who improperly issued a search warrant was liable for triple damages, as well as the searcher.

The previous was meant to be conceptual and due to foggy recall may not be precisely accurate in all particulars. But, it conveys an overall concept.

The courts have been slowly eroding our protections for decades. Or, more precisely, police lacking a strict rule against some trick or tactic did what they wanted and then sometimes the courts would sanction it after the fact. No-kock warrants and even high-risk warrants are part of that.

You also have the whole angle of give an inch, and police will take two inches. For example, there have been many cases of the "knock" not being heard, sometimes by innocents in the very room. Pay attention to that. It wasn't a criminal trying to weasel out of something who said it wasn't heard; it was an innocent who was on the wrong end of the mistaken warrant. So, there is evidence that police when required to knock aren't exactly doing a whole lot to make sure the occupants know it is the police on the outside.

You have a number of variations on the theme of the occupant not recognizing it is police. The guy was asleep. He was downstairs watching TV. He was (insert reason here).

A really, really big reason this is coming up is because so many low-risk search warrants are now being executed by SWAT. Hey, these guys and their training has to be used somewhere. The increase in the number of SWAT teams is astounding. As is the the number of times they're used.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bang on a door, yell police a couple times, wait 10 -12 seconds and then pound the door down, there are going to be plenty of circumstances where people just don't know for sure its the cops coming through the door because they were asleep, in the bath, watching TV with the volume loud, etc., etc, etc.

People are dying. Pet dogs are being shot, sometimes even when they're tied up. Innocent families are being terrorized. And there is rarely an apology for any mistakes.

You wouldn't think it would take language in a constitutional amendment to conduct searches only in daylight. Nor, a solid knock and wait until the owner appeared. You'd think decency or tradition would cover it.

But, here is the crucial point, I believe. Announcing your presence, showing a warrant, waiting for the owner to step aside prove one thing--that the citizen is recognized as such and is being given a chance to willingly submit to the authority granted in the warrant. These raids undercut all that. These raids say, "You will comply NOW!" while there is a gun in your face and somebody else is throwing your daughter to the floor. Involuntary submission to force, without the chance to voluntarily submit. They don't care whether you have time to consider that there is lawful authority behind it. They don't want you to comply of your own will to a warrant exhibited. They want you to comply with the guns and the tasers. NOW! DO IT NOW!! That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset behind these raids.

Well said Sir.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I'll bet that the numbers of successful/justified entries far out number the false/unjustified entries. People in general seem to just want to complain about stuff.

You don't have to bet. Just start reading the material at the links already given. Sort them into 1) a news report on a raid, and 2) stats on raids, and 3) analysis on raids by liberty-minded people.

The picture will come together for you.

You have a huge advantage many of us didn't. You are being presented with tons of material all at once. Most of us had to come across this stuff ourselves across the course of months or years. You're getting access to it in practically one occurrence.

The bottom line is that the "justification" for SWAT raids has been shifting since the 1980's. The courts have been going along with it one piece at a time, but nobody until maybe 2006 or so has really looked at it overall and seen where we've arrived to as each "justification" set the premise that led to the next which set a new premise which led to the next...until here we are today where tons of even low-risk and no-risk warrants are being executed by SWAT.
 
Last edited:

Metalhead47

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
2,800
Location
South Whidbey, Washington, USA
You don't have to bet. Just start reading the material at the links already given. Sort them into 1) a news report on a raid, and 2) stats on raids, and 3) analysis on raids by liberty-minded people.

The picture will come together for you.

You have a huge advantage many of us didn't. You are being presented with tons of material all at once. Most of us had to come across this stuff ourselves across the course of months or years. You're getting access to it in practically one occurrence.

The bottom line is that the "justification" for SWAT raids has been shifting since the 1980's. The courts have been going along with it one piece at a time, but nobody until maybe 2006 or so has really looked at it overall and seen where we've arrived to as each "justification" set the premise that led to the next which set a new premise which led to the next...until here we are today where tons of even low-risk and no-risk warrants are being executed by SWAT.

This.

Hang around this forum long enough Decklin, and it will start to influence how you think. Usually for the better.



You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
attachment.php
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
You don't have to bet. Just start reading the material at the links already given. Sort them into 1) a news report on a raid, and 2) stats on raids, and 3) analysis on raids by liberty-minded people.

The picture will come together for you.

You have a huge advantage many of us didn't. You are being presented with tons of material all at once. Most of us had to come across this stuff ourselves across the course of months or years. You're getting access to it in practically one occurrence.

The bottom line is that the "justification" for SWAT raids has been shifting since the 1980's. The courts have been going along with it one piece at a time, but nobody until maybe 2006 or so has really looked at it overall and seen where we've arrived to as each "justification" set the premise that led to the next which set a new premise which led to the next...until here we are today where tons of even low-risk and no-risk warrants are being executed by SWAT.

I appreciate the clear cut info you are giving me.
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
This.

Hang around this forum long enough Decklin, and it will start to influence how you think. Usually for the better.



You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
attachment.php

Over the last few months this forum has influenced my thinking. As stated before that is one reason I frequent this forum.

Orphan, thanks so much for choosing whether I am fit for law enforcement based off two lines taken out of context and with absolutley no idea of my background.
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
I love the writing on this story; especially where it says the mother was "threatened and shouted to the ground with a gun".

Guns don't shout. That's a definite case of anthropomorphizing (giving human attributes or abilities to) an object.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Decklin, our system of government is supposed to be one of enumerated powers.
So police and governments assertion saying "it doesn't say we can't" does not mean you can. You are supposed to only have the authority we grant you. In addition to the fine points others have brought out.

I may suggest a book to read, "Tyranny of good intention, how prosecutors and law enforcement are trampling the constitution in the name of justice" by Roberts and Stratton.

It explains very well how law was founded and supposed to work and how it has been thrown away for fake rational of justice. Is law enforcement to blame fully for this? No, but it is a corrupted system, that needs to be reigned in.

In my opinion there is never a need for a "no knock" warrant. And that our state and federal constitution along with some court decisions that make resisting false arrest up to the point of taking the officers life make arresting someone without informing them illegal. Remember any government job is one of enumerated powers.

Also remember that in a free society for something to be a crime there needs to be a victim, actus reus, mens rea. Enforcing law for laws sake is tyranny plain and simple.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Vitaeus, I did not 'use' the Illinois Supreme Court for anything, I paraphrased what the Indiana Supreme Court said.

ManInBlack, The John Bad Elk v. United States case is a really old ruling and is likely not even used, or would not be used today by the SCOTUS. Likely not even a Circuit Court would use that case. "The times they are a changing." As to the 'given the facts' thing, the court did not use "or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." in their ruling. You may not be charged with murder but manslaughter. Now, the trial judge/jury may let the dude off based on the 'new' facts, but it still must go back to a jury as directed by SCOTUS in that case, no guarantees.

From Missouri Revised Statutes:

Officer may break open doors. 544.200. To make an arrest in criminal actions, the officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a dwelling house or other building, or any other enclosure, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he be refused admittance.
A no-knock, in Missouri, is clearly in violation of this statute. But LE conducts them anyway....go figure.

I'll wager that SWAT rarely wait for the resident(s) to refuse them entry. SWAT will claim 'exigent circumstances'. They will lie to defend their illegal behavior. They will claim probable cause after the fact in the hopes that a judge and jury will believe them and give them a pass. Victims of SWAT abuse are not always charged with felony crimes but misdemeanor crimes, this is exceptionally vile and repulsive, considering any violation of the law that is not a felony must be witnessed by LE. Then again LE routinely misapplies laws to charge folks with a crime where no crime was committed. All you can do is make a decision and see what happens.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
You are absolutely right times are changing but not for the better. We need to roll back to constitutional court decisions like Bad Elk.

We need to roll back unconstitutional trampling of our legal system that is modeled more after Nazi Germany and Communist Russia than one based on any sort of "justice".
 
Top