Resisting the police

D

davem

Moderator
Nobody is perfect, maybe the police just got the wrong address. As soon as you realize it is the police and not a crook I would not interfere in any way. These guys aren't going to bust in without a warrant and their primary worry is probably making their wife a widow.
In today's world you have an endless menu of rights if the entry was illegal. You can sue them into penury, but let the police do what they think is their job. I would not interefere. Most cops I know are good guys just doing their job. You aren't defending America or the Constitution by resisting. America is a free country with elected public officials, if you have been wronged you can sue them in a court of law and have the matter decided upon by a jury of your peers.
 
S

shortwave

New member
Nobody is perfect, maybe the police just got the wrong address.
Click to expand...

Seriously! :rolleyes:

Not that simple my friend. Sometimes innocent lives have been taken. The least that happens is thousands of tax payers $ in investigative man hours are wasted due to the blown LE cover. The real BG's shut down only to relocate and start the process all over.

To say "maybe the police just got the wrong address" is ludicrous if you know the chain of events that's supposed to happen prior to a raid. Police don't just get the wrong address. There's a drastic break down of communication between LEO somewhere along the way in the LE events leading up to the raid for this to happen. Even if the courts issue the warrant with the wrong address on it, somebody with the entry team should double check confirmation of the address well before the raid. Not afterwards.

It's not to much to expect that the most important piece in the whole puzzle 'the location of the raid' would be severely scrutinized/double,triple checked from the onset of the investigation till the ultimate raid.

IMO, raiding the wrong location, shows/ranks among the worse in LE departmental discipline and is totally unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
E

Edward429451

Moderator
if you have been wronged you can sue them in a court of law and have the matter decided upon by a jury of your peers.
Click to expand...

Only if you're independently rich or a lawyer yourself, otherwise this warm and fuzzy statement is absolutely not true.
 
S

Single Six

New member
Shortwave: The fact that a "wrong house raid" is more apt to occur in a big city rather than a small town is just one of many reasons why I prefer serving in Mayberry, as opposed to Raleigh.;)
 
S

shortwave

New member
Don't blame you there SS.

There's a big difference in the courts issuing/LE serving a couple warrants a week versus a couple hundred a day. :D

P.S. Thank You for your services in Mayberry. ;)
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
One possible way to reduce the errors (overall) is to make it so that while the city/county/state/etc., is responsible and pays (or their insurance pays) when found liable in court, the individual officers and their supervisors would have their wages garnished to pay back the city/insurance company, etc.

Not likely, but if implemented, I feel pretty confident that a bit more care might be taken, when their personal paychecks are on the line.

I have to wonder about the methods used in some situations. I have heard of many cases where police spent months or even years investigating, but then when they actually go to make the arrest, it has to be lightning fast, and hang those petty details, like the correct address....

On the other hand, the hundreds or thousands of correct address raids that happen for each of the badly wrong ones means that while individually a bad address raid is a bad thing, overall, it is a very minor problem, statistically.

Which is why damage awards need to be high, to ensure this otherwise insignficant problem is treated as something important. And anything costing a lot of money to the police, is important. Trouble is, the police themselves, don't PAY they money. It doesn't come out of their pocket, and usually doesn't come out of their budget, either.

Other than a tongue lashing, and maybe some minor discipline for a mid level administrator (a few weeks off WITH PAY!?) what really happens to force them to ensure that they get it right, each and every time?

Nothing, that I am seeing....
 
K

K_Mac

New member
I think this is a fascinating discussion. I know several police officers, and have great respect for them and the service they provide. I have encountered a couple who did not represent their departments or their profession very well. They were the exceptions in my experience. I say all of this to say I do not have an ax to grind with law enforcement. They often have a thankless job to do in very demanding and dangerous situations. Thank God for them.

The challenge that many LEOs seem to have is they can get cynical in their world view, and many tend to see through a dark set of glasses. They can get an "us versus them" attitude that makes for distrust, esp in the more crime ridden neighborhoods. A forced entry raid is a very dangerous situation where there is no margin of error. Get it right and everyone goes home for dinner; get wrong, and officers or innocents can die. With the stakes so high it is incomprehensible that the wrong house can be targeted. When it does happen everyone involved is culpable, and should be held accountable.

In the case of Barnes v. State of Indiana that Webleymkv posted the court found: We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. For those of us who tend to take a libertarian view of government, this very problematic. In fact it is more than a little frightening.
 
A

armoredman

New member
44AMP, I can pretty much guarantee that every police union from FOP to AZCOPS will fight that tooth and nail. As a 10 year vet of corrections, I watched unions do whatever they could to protect officers, mostly from getting fired or disciplined for being screw-ups! It took a mountain of paperwork and personal intercession from at least one Archangel to get someone fired.
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
Click to expand...
How am I supposed to make "sure" it's LE when they are shining the spotlights into my eyes, popping flashbangs, yelling contradictory orders and/or shooting at me? I don't have time to ask to see Department issued ID!!! There is NO, let me repeat that, NO EXCUSE for a TYPO error that gets an innocent civilian shot or injured. My wife will be on the phone with 911 per plan, so if she gets through before they breach the door, then we can get it resolved fast.
I repeat it for the last time, I have no reason to ever suspect I will be the target of a police dynamic entry warrant service. I am not a criminal, nor do I consort with known criminals or frequent known areas of criminal activity. Therefore, I WILL RESPOND AS IF WHO EVER IS BREAKING DOWN MY DOOR IS AN ARMED HOME INVADER. PERIOD.
If I was Lenny the Local Drug Dealer, I could expect a no knock to prevent the drugs from being flushed, or if I was Rodney the Kidnapper Rapist I could expect a no knock to prevent the death of a potential hostage. NOT being any of these, (hell, last TRAFFIC TICKET I got was 20 years ago!!!), I do NOT expect to have my door broken down, and as the Constitution STATES, I have the right to be secure in my home against unreasonable searches, which a TYPO would be, also period.
The onus was ALWAYS on us when we did a forced cell move or any other use of force, explain in detail exactly why you did that, and every one else did the same. These IRs could save you or hang you if you screwed up, and individual officers could be terminated over extremely bad actions - this is with convicted criminals, not Grandma and Grandpa peacefully watching TV until the flash bangs go off! So I say the onus should always be on those serving these no-knock warrants, always. If you get it wrong, YOU ARE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY. I don't get a break for forgetting my license renewal, or making a typo on my taxes, and I'd bet nobody ever dies during those actions...
I'm sorry if this stance offends anyone, or makes any LEOs uncomfortable, it is not meant to do, not at all. I have always said those who wear the badge should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, which is why I actively tried to end "professional courtesy" to staff caught speeding or any other lawbreaking.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
With all the discussion about no-knock warrants, wrong address raids, and police impersonation, I think we're missing what might possibly be the most insidious part of all this: greater ability for crooked police to harass people.

Now, contrary to what some have said, this ruling did not completely gut the 4th Amendment. Any evidence obtained during an illegal search is still inadmissible in court. What it does do, however, is provide an avenue for a crooked cop who has it out for someone to fabricate charges against that person.

For example, suppose we have a particularly unstable cop who recently went through a messy divorce. Said cop decides that, for whatever reason, he wants to kick in his ex-wife's door and do whatever his imagination can produce to her and that he'll do it in uniform while he's on duty. Upon kicking in her door, his ex-wife's new boyfriend recognizes him and tackles him attempting to protect his girlfriend. Said unstable cop radios for backup and the boyfriend is arrested and charged with battery of a police officer, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and whatever other generic charge they might care to toss at him.

Upon further investigation, it is learned that the unstable cop had no warrant, probable cause, or any good reason at all to even be at his ex-wife's house. However, none of that matters for the boyfriend because the legality of the officer's actions cannot be used as a defense. Further suppose that this unstable cop is a member of a corrupt department in which he's popular and that his fellow officers didn't like is ex-wife or, by extension, her new boyfriend. Because of this, the other officers in the department sweep the unstable cop's actions under the rug but decide to leave the boyfriend to swing in the wind. End result: the boyfriend winds up in jail for defending his girlfriend while the unstable cop, who is the real villain in the situation, remains free to do as he wishes with the boyfriend out of the picture. I don't know about the rest of you, but the above situation sounds much more likely than SWAT teams busting down the door of the wrong house.
 
M

mehavey

New member
For example, suppose we have a particularly unstable cop who recently went through a messy divorce. Said cop decides that, for whatever reason, he wants to kick in his ex-wife's door and do whatever his imagination can produce to her and that he'll do it in uniform while he's on duty. Upon kicking in her door, his ex-wife's new boyfriend recognizes him and tackles him attempting to protect his girlfriend. Said unstable cop radios for backup and the boyfriend is arrested and charged
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, the ex-husband cop would wind up in jail, not the boyfriend in the scenario above. No question in my mind. He acted outside the color of the law no matter how you play it.

More insidious would be the case of the ex-husband cooking up falsified drug bust search warrant cause for his buddy cops to use. Then it would be under color of law and a lot messier -- until found out in front of a jury.
 
K

K_Mac

New member
webleymkv I think the scenario you give is not too far fetched. The ruling that says there is no right to resist unlawful entry by police leaves a citizen at the mercy of the the person committing the crime, and at the mercy of the courts and the legal system. An armed intruder breaking into my home should expect to met with deadly force. An armed team of police breaking into my home may not be met with force, since that would likely get me killed, but they better damned well have legal cause or I will spend every nickle I have to see those involved are held accountable. The problem with that is, if they are protected by the system, what recourse do I have?

This ruling may not completely gut the fourth Amendment but it certainly does it violence. The burden is probable cause protecting against unreasonable intrusion into my affairs. This ruling doesn't even require legal cause.
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.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
For what it's worth, the ex-husband cop would wind up in jail, not the boyfriend in the scenario above. No question in my mind. He acted outside the color of the law no matter how you play it.
Click to expand...

I wish you were right, I really do. Unfortunately, I'm not so confident. In the situation I describe, the boyfriend would have two options: A. Claim that the charges against him are completely false because he did not resist law enforcement (this would be a lie), or B. Claim an "affirmative defense" in that he did indeed resist law enforcement, but mitigating factors left him with no choice but to do so in order to defend himself and/or his girlfriend. Unfortunately, the IN Supreme Court ruling basically states that resisting law enforcement is never justifiable regardless of mitigating factors. While any evidence obtained in the home would be inadmissible since the cop never had legal justification to kick in the door to begin with, the resisting charge would still stick because, according to the IN Supreme Court, the legality of the cop's entry has no bearing on the resisting charge.

Now, if the DA in the hypothetical jurisdiction has any sense and/or moral compass, he/she might drop the charges. Likewise, if the other officers in the department have sense/moral compasses they might not back whatever story the unstable cop might cook up. However, those are both very big if's (remember the whole fiasco in Canton OH not all that long ago) and not one's that I'd like to stake my freedom on.
 
R

Rifleman1776

New member
Long responses and many 'supposed' scenarios mean nothing.
In the end, the wants of the police and prosecutor are what decide if the citizen is charged and arrested. Then the decision of the judge affects what comes next. Fact is, most of us do not have the big bucks necessary to hire the lawyers and pay all attendant costs that will come with an arrest. Many (most?) of us would roll over, plead guilty to a misdeamor, pay a fine and, hopefully, get probation for an wrong commited by a police officer.
Quote the Constitution and you will be labeled a nut case or militia terrorist.
 
M

mehavey

New member
A. Claim that the charges against him are completely false because he did not resist law enforcement (this would be a lie),
Click to expand...
Not so, and this is critical. The cop had to enter under the color of law to have status as a peace officer. What you described was an angry ex-husband committing B&E and assault-with-intent. I saw nothing as to how he would have been able to say he was acting as a cop in enforcement of any law.

DON'T allow a single court's idiotic ruling in a single district to affect your common sense and blanket defensive authority-to-protect.
 
J

jcsturgeon

New member
Tactically speaking I can't imagine a situation where you could shoot a police officer in accordance with the Castle Doctrine and live to tell the tale. I mean, it's one of those things where you ought to have the right but that it's best left unused. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that.

Such a law though could protect you if a police officer claimed assault if they were injured during your detainment etc.

I think if a police officer or officers illegally enter your home you should take careful notes when they leave and sue them, the department, the city and the state for every possible cent you can... but shooting at them is not going to end well for you.
 
M

mehavey

New member
"Shooting" notwithstanding...

So you would simply stand there while this guy beats hell out of your fiance and concludes by raping her in front of you (and likely her children as well)?

Tell me it ain't so.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
Originally posted by mehavey
Quote:
A. Claim that the charges against him are completely false because he did not resist law enforcement (this would be a lie),

Not so, and this is critical. The cop had to enter under the color of law to have status as a peace officer. What you described was an angry ex-husband committing B&E and assault-with-intent. I saw nothing as to how he would have been able to say he was acting as a cop in enforcement of any law.

DON'T allow a single court's idiotic ruling in a single district to affect your common sense and blanket defensive authority-to-protect.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the IN Supreme Court ruled that whether or not the cop was acting under color of law is irrelevant. If the cop in question cooks up some story afterward as to why he had reason to enter, such as that he was driving by and thought he heard someone scream inside the house or smelled methanphetamine, whether or not his story meets the definition of probable cause is irrelevant as far as resisting charges go. Unless you can prove that the cop is lying, a rather difficult thing to do, you'd be up a creek without a paddle insofar as the resisting charges are concerned.

Also, this single court's idiotic ruling happens to affect the entire state of Indiana which also happens to be the state in which I live.

So you would simply stand there while this guy beats hell out of your fiance and concludes by raping her in front of you (and likely her children as well)?

Tell me it ain't so.
Click to expand...

I don't think this was directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. No, I couldn't just stand by and watch anyone, cop or not, do these sorts of things to my loved ones. However, this ruling puts me in a very uncomfortable predicament of possibly being forced to choose between what I, and most other people, believe to be right and what is legal.

Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Let's get back to realism. In any state, a police officer attacking you as dsecribed would be a criminal.
Click to expand...

You're right, it most certainly would be criminal. However, the fact remains that, in the situation I describe, a police officer would be the one perpetrating the crime. Because, according to the Indiana Supreme Court, one has no right to resist a police officer's entry into his/her home regardless of the legality of that entry, determining the officer's intentions would come down to the boyfriend's word against the cop's. Since his lack of a warrant or probable cause has no bearing on the resisting charge, the boyfriend's only hope to defend himself against the resisting charges would be to prove that he did not resist at all in the first place, which would be a lie because he did indeed resist allbeit for good reason, or to prove that the cop's intentions were not as the cop says they were. I don't know about anyone else, but having my freedom depend on whether a jury will belive my word or that of a sworn officer of the law is not a situation that I see as favorable to me, and that is the crux of the issue in my mind: this ruling shifts too much of the burden of proof away from the state and onto the defendant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top