Resisting the police
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Rifleman1776
New member
In many states, including my Arkansas, one cannot sue a governmental body. It is called soverign immunity. It dates back to English Common law that follows the, even older, concept that "the King can do no wrong".
Fishing_Cabin
New member
Technosavant said:
I agree that the dynamic, or no knock entries can be, and in some instances are over used. Locally speaking, it is a pretty rare event that this choice is made, and when it happens there is alot of double, triple, and then more checking to ensure the facts are right.
One thing that often is not mentioned when discussing these tactics, are that the SWAT, SRT, SET, or whatever you call it teams, are generally either doing that 100% of the time, or are in senior patrol officers as well as being on the team. Where does alot of the investigation leading up to the search or arrest warrent come from? That is the detectives, narcotics officers, gang officers, etc that are doing the investigation. At times there is mis-communication. As much as we try, I know of no way to remove the human error part, only to work as a team and try to reduce it to as little as possible.
As to those that mentioned sueing the agency or officers. There should be some sort of "closure" and "making things whole again" if it was in fact an illegal entry. It should be more then a new door, and a "sorry" in my mind as well. How much, would probably vary, and we all probably would not agree on.
Glad I'm entertaining you.
Now, lets take an actual case that happened not long ago. Cops go to carry out a drug raid. They bust down the front door, run in screaming. They pull people out of bed and throw them on the ground at gun point. Ooops, wrong house. The drug house is next door. In the mean time, the excitement and shock are too much for grandma. Her heart quits. Paramedics arrive but are unable to revive grandma. Are you suggesting the family should simply accept "Ooops, sorry"?
Technosavant
New member
Yes, the money would ultimately come from the public's own funds (or their insurance). However, the police do work on behalf of the people as a whole... it is not unreasonable to expect that the government pays for the screwups. If anything, it would cause the higher ups to take a very strong interest in the proper use of such tactics. If getting it wrong was an immediate million dollar hit to the budget, I guarantee you they'd triple check everything. Despite the best of intentions (hopefully, they're the best of intentions), the chance of causing harm or pain to innocent people has thus far not been enough to cause police agencies to review the use of these tactics.
armoredman
New member
Read this one. http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2012/03/13/253651?mini=newscalendar/2012-02
Note the date. Yes, they did open the door, to a deliberate impersonation.
I am 100% for making sure the POLICE have EXACTLY the right address and location for their "dynamic entry", period. I have absolutely zero reason to fear any police raid, as I am not a criminal nor involved in criminal activities, so I would have to assume anyone slamming down my door in the wee hours is NOT law enforcement, but an attempted home invasion. You want to serve a lawful warrant on me or my dwelling? Come up to the front door in uniform, knock, present your warrant specifying the items and areas to be searched per 4A, and in you will come - I'll hold the door for ya. Heck, I'll make coffee!
Note the date. Yes, they did open the door, to a deliberate impersonation.
I am 100% for making sure the POLICE have EXACTLY the right address and location for their "dynamic entry", period. I have absolutely zero reason to fear any police raid, as I am not a criminal nor involved in criminal activities, so I would have to assume anyone slamming down my door in the wee hours is NOT law enforcement, but an attempted home invasion. You want to serve a lawful warrant on me or my dwelling? Come up to the front door in uniform, knock, present your warrant specifying the items and areas to be searched per 4A, and in you will come - I'll hold the door for ya. Heck, I'll make coffee!
Last edited:
Shotgun693
New member
I was on a Narcotics Raid Team for about 5 years. Based on that, I reached the conclusion that the above was exactly how to run a Warrant. We never went to the wrong house but it was really rare for the Investigators to have things right like: the layout of the property, the location of any dope, the amount of dope or even if the house had a front door or not. I remember being told that the dope would get flushed if we didn't get in fast, if it’s such a small amount then let'm flush it. Anyway, I got out of that Team after they took us to a house where after 3 months of surveillance they knew that 'the garage is full of guns' and 'we'll kick in the front door'. We found one old .22 rifle under a bed and the front door had been boarded up for years.
On the lawsuit/recovery train of thought: How does it usually work out (pay off) when one officer mistakenly shoots or otherwise injures a fellow officer? I would think this type of officer error would require financial compensation of the victim.
OK now, should it really make a difference whether it is another officer or an uninvolved citizen who is injured?
I think the two should be treated very similarly; maybe a bit more delicacy to the citizen who didn't "sign up" for such risks as those LEO's know they will face in their career.
edit* Maybe we could just eliminate toilet tanks & equip warrant-serving teams with a utility specialist to turn the water off? Maybe a backflow device to insure complete loss of pressure in the house? How many "no-knocks" would that avoid?
OK now, should it really make a difference whether it is another officer or an uninvolved citizen who is injured?
I think the two should be treated very similarly; maybe a bit more delicacy to the citizen who didn't "sign up" for such risks as those LEO's know they will face in their career.
edit* Maybe we could just eliminate toilet tanks & equip warrant-serving teams with a utility specialist to turn the water off? Maybe a backflow device to insure complete loss of pressure in the house? How many "no-knocks" would that avoid?
Here's a link to the case that this all stems from for those interested:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Basically, I think this was a poor and unnecessary decision on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court. Given the circumstances, I think that INSC could have just as easily held that Barnes' behavior represented exigent circumstances for the officers to enter and simply left it at that. While INSC did not explicitly rule on whether or not the entry was legal, they did state the following:
Originally posted by Indiana Supreme Court
This leads me to believe that, had they ruled on the matter, INSC would have found the officers' entry into Barnes' home legal.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf
Basically, I think this was a poor and unnecessary decision on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court. Given the circumstances, I think that INSC could have just as easily held that Barnes' behavior represented exigent circumstances for the officers to enter and simply left it at that. While INSC did not explicitly rule on whether or not the entry was legal, they did state the following:
Originally posted by Indiana Supreme Court
This leads me to believe that, had they ruled on the matter, INSC would have found the officers' entry into Barnes' home legal.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Maybe yes, maybe no. I spent several years working for an organization that provided legal defense for municipalities. Technically, we did not provide "insurance," but we did provide financial coverage for certain events. The coverage that we provided covered compensatory damage, but not punitive damages. Assuming victory on the part of the plaintiff, the questions will be: (a) whether the policy provides coverage for compensatory damages, punitive damages, or both; and (b) what kinds of damages are awarded.Ludarue said:
First I have allways been against "no Knock Laws"
Second from news reports there is an increasing number of fake police raids as part of home invasion robberies.
Thirdly it has allways been a part of my security plan to allways call 911 as soon as possible. My home is layered so as to require battering multiple doors to reach the occupied portion of the home.
If in doubt ask the dispatcher if a raid is ongoing at that location. In a small rural county such as mine dispatch should be able to respond. The call would go something like this:
Someone is busting in my door screaming police. I do not see any uniforms are you raiding (give address). Hurry I am afraid and armed. If the answer is yes we are raiding tell her that you have disarmed and am coming out. Of course if the answer is no start shooting.
Second from news reports there is an increasing number of fake police raids as part of home invasion robberies.
Thirdly it has allways been a part of my security plan to allways call 911 as soon as possible. My home is layered so as to require battering multiple doors to reach the occupied portion of the home.
If in doubt ask the dispatcher if a raid is ongoing at that location. In a small rural county such as mine dispatch should be able to respond. The call would go something like this:
Someone is busting in my door screaming police. I do not see any uniforms are you raiding (give address). Hurry I am afraid and armed. If the answer is yes we are raiding tell her that you have disarmed and am coming out. Of course if the answer is no start shooting.
You are absolutely correct Spats McGee...
...Took the privilege of highlighting the 'insurance' statement of your post, hope you don't mind.
Most municipalities are considered 'self insured' and do not carry an insurance policy through a separate ins. provider.
Two noted cases I remember in Cols., Ohio:
First case:
involves 4 legally parked (expensive) cars in a residential area and a hook-n-ladder fire truck. Cars were parked on the street,against curb on a slight curve. Fire truck is on a run. Tiller(guy steering rear of hook-n-ladder) let the rear of the unit sideswipe all four cars doing extreme damage. The owners of the car received $300 each per car. That's all the city was legally required to pay, period. The cars involved, two Mercedes, a Volvo station wagon and a very nice late model Corvette.
You couldn't buy a side mirror for any of these cars for $300 let alone repair the extensive body damage.
Second case:
involved a raid of a suspected drug house in which the wrong house was invaded. The mistaken house which was raided was owned by an elderly, wheelchair bound man. He was peacefully sitting in his wheelchair in his living room, watching TV when flashbang's were sent through his windows, his front door breached and he was taken out of his wheelchair. His arm was broken as well as separated ribs.
The city paid for repairs to his house, repairs on his broken wheelchair and paid his medical expense's. He(his family) sued the city in which the city settled with them,out of court for a ridiculously low, undisclosed(to the public) amount.
Ironically, this extremely embarrassing event wasn't highly publicized in our local newspapers. Just one very brief, small article when the incident first happened, buried two or three pages back in the newspaper. No follow-up articles.
Both these incidents were handled extremely unfair to the victims. Witnessing over thirty years of similar incidences, I can honestly say, if you have some kind of unprovoked altercation with most municipalities, in which you are totally innocent, you will not be compensated as you would having the same altercation with a private company or individual. Not by a long shot.
This has been a huge problem in the State of Ohio recently. IFAIK there have been something like 5-6 incidents in the last 4 mos. We've currently got a guy going around pulling people over in LE garb and even has a beacon in his car.
We've had home invasions in which the BG's were dressed in LE attire and in one case, there car looked like a patrol car.
Scary for sure. Not only for the residence but LE as well.
Note: If what appears to be LE knocks at my door, before I open the door a quick call to dispatch will be placed. Regardless if I see a what appears to be a cruiser in the drive.
Last edited:
Single Six
New member
Being uniformed LE in a small Southern town, it's very rare that I have to participate in raids, but I have done it. It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where anyone at my agency could somehow hit the wrong house, since we all know where our trouble spots are. Still, I guess anything's possible. My advice to the citizenry would be thus: If you find yourself caught up in a "wrong address raid", and if it's clear that said raiders are indeed LEOs, just do as they tell you. When it becomes clear to them that they're at the wrong address [and it will do so pretty quickly], everything will be sorted out. You'll probably receive effusive apologies, and if that's not enough for you, you can certainly take it up with the chief or a private attorney if you wish.
Edward429451
Moderator
A few years back, we had people posing as city workers or Utility workers gaining access to people homes to rob them. I don't think they ever caught them. I would say trust your instincts on this and be suspicious of everyone that you don't know.
Even if the Police at your door are bonafide, there is little reason to ever invite them into your home. Yu have to remember that even if there is a nice guy inside the uniform, he is generally bound to the statutes and his job is to spot infractions and use them against you in a court of law. You don't have to resist the police, but you don't have to invite them in. Conduct your business on the porch with the door closed and politely decline them when they ask real nice if they can step inside...
If you don't let anyone in as a rule, how could you be invaded?
Even if the Police at your door are bonafide, there is little reason to ever invite them into your home. Yu have to remember that even if there is a nice guy inside the uniform, he is generally bound to the statutes and his job is to spot infractions and use them against you in a court of law. You don't have to resist the police, but you don't have to invite them in. Conduct your business on the porch with the door closed and politely decline them when they ask real nice if they can step inside...
If you don't let anyone in as a rule, how could you be invaded?
A lot of good comments here... I've been on a few raids and got called to back Tac on one where they did indeed, raid the house. The warrant had been applied for by an inter-agency task force and as nearly as we could tell, the error was a simple typo. The Tac guys had their heads on straight and almost as soon as they got inside, they realized something was horribly wrong. Nobody got shot and the city got to buy a new door.
There have also been occasions where the truth has been stretched in the warrant application process. In those cases, somebody needs to go to jail. I would support legislation, at any level, that makes 'false information on a warrant application' a felony.
There have also been occasions where the truth has been stretched in the warrant application process. In those cases, somebody needs to go to jail. I would support legislation, at any level, that makes 'false information on a warrant application' a felony.
Oh, it's possible. Surely not by any means a daily event but it has/does happen. A quick google of something to the effect of 'police raid wrong house' may give you a surprise....
....
Although, I would say the chances of this happening in a small town would be greatly reduced versus a large metro area.
The house raid in the Ohio incident I referred to was a total fiasco. Not only did they get the wrong house but the wrong street. The house they were suppose to raid was the next street over. You could stand in the side yard of the raided house, look through the houses to the houses on the street over and see the house they were supposed to raid.
Yes, there was multiple apologies from 'red faced' city officials to the elderly man as well as to his family.
Last edited: