• 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.

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

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
Some appropriate door reinforcement can transform any handheld battering ram into a knock-knock-knock warrant.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfR0AeMjStcK8uKCMvHNQpLRpAOxFou5h[/video]
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Is this not ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-1737
Not in the least; one is about canvassing a neighborhood in hopes of finding customers for a commercial enterprise, the other is canvassing a neighborhood engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause. Aside from doors being involved in only the most peripheral way there's no parallel,
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Not in the least; one is about canvassing a neighborhood in hopes of finding customers for a commercial enterprise, the other is canvassing a neighborhood engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause. Aside from doors being involved in only the most peripheral way there's no parallel,

Well, the court case specifically paralleled "soliciting" as either for customers or merely for conversation; hence my question. I'm now assuming the permit required in the jurisdiction in question specified for commercial purposes, which either meets a different standard or has not yet been challenged.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
After reviewing GA and TN gun laws, there seems no difference. A defense to a violation is the permit. A cop in GA sees your OCed handgun and cannot (yeah right:rolleyes:) stop you to see if you are permitted. The same in TN except there is not language preventing a TN cop from jacking you up to check your papers. Either way, the cop bears the burden of being a rights violating goon or not.

Secondly, a kid walking the neighborhood knocking on doors is not the point, the point is he suspicious and worthy of detaining because a cop "does not like the cut of his jib"...or that "he [the kid going door to door] don't like right" to the cop.

US v. Black and Terry v. Ohio are one in the same except in Black the court got it right by telling the cops they got it wrong. Thereby tossing the gun evidence cuz cops did not have even RAS to detain Black. So, the 4th Circuit, in my view, ignored Terry where Black was concerned.

Which brings me back to the op, no-knocks are against the law cuz cops must use past data to presume that a person of interest is in the target house unless they observe directly that the target in the residence. Another "hunch"..."Well, we sawr the bad guy was there one time last week so he must be there now!"...BREACH!!!!!
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
After reviewing GA and TN gun laws, there seems no difference. A defense to a violation is the permit. A cop in GA sees your OCed handgun and cannot (yeah right:rolleyes:) stop you to see if you are permitted. The same in TN except there is not language preventing a TN cop from jacking you up to check your papers. Either way, the cop bears the burden of being a rights violating goon or not.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I listed both laws and explained exactly how they differed, your lack of understanding is not my fault. Again, in Georgia the offense is carrying without a permit while in Tenn the offense is carrying (for which there are exceptions in the law.) It may seem like a small point but there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime in Georgia merely upon discovery that there is a weapon, unlike in Tenn.

How do you interpret this bit of Georgia Code, seems pretty black and white to me.
O.C.G.A.§ 16-11-137
(b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.

Secondly, a kid walking the neighborhood knocking on doors is not the point, the point is he suspicious and worthy of detaining because a cop "does not like the cut of his jib"...or that "he [the kid going door to door] don't like right" to the cop.
Thanfully, we have Terry v Ohio which says there must be more than 'mere suspicion' or inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences.

US v. Black and Terry v. Ohio are one in the same except in Black the court got it right by telling the cops they got it wrong. Thereby tossing the gun evidence cuz cops did not have even RAS to detain Black. So, the 4th Circuit, in my view, ignored Terry where Black was concerned.
You mistake what Terry was actually about; it wasn't about the propriety of stopping a pair of men who were seen taking the very unusual step of a dozen or more trips to stare into a window and then have a conversation. As the Court said, "The crux of Terry, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation." The court found that McFadden was justified in taking steps to assure his own safety when detaining persons he suspected of planning a particularized crime.

Which brings me back to the op, no-knocks are against the law cuz cops must use past data to presume that a person of interest is in the target house unless they observe directly that the target in the residence. Another "hunch"..."Well, we sawr the bad guy was there one time last week so he must be there now!"...BREACH!!!!!
 
Last edited:

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
After reviewing GA and TN gun laws, there seems no difference. A defense to a violation is the permit. A cop in GA sees your OCed handgun and cannot (yeah right:rolleyes:) stop you to see if you are permitted. The same in TN except there is not language preventing a TN cop from jacking you up to check your papers. Either way, the cop bears the burden of being a rights violating goon or not.

Secondly, a kid walking the neighborhood knocking on doors is not the point, the point is he suspicious and worthy of detaining because a cop "does not like the cut of his jib"...or that "he [the kid going door to door] don't like right" to the cop.

US v. Black and Terry v. Ohio are one in the same except in Black the court got it right by telling the cops they got it wrong. Thereby tossing the gun evidence cuz cops did not have even RAS to detain Black. So, the 4th Circuit, in my view, ignored Terry where Black was concerned.

Which brings me back to the op, no-knocks are against the law cuz cops must use past data to presume that a person of interest is in the target house unless they observe directly that the target in the residence. Another "hunch"..."Well, we sawr the bad guy was there one time last week so he must be there now!"...BREACH!!!!!

If your default position is that the police or other government officials will pay no attention to the law and just do as they want no matter what, the discussion will be very brief and accomplish nothing. In the case you describe where the police just do as they wish, what soulution would satisfy you? In the face of wording in the law that prohibits the exact behavior you suggest would occur, you scoff that they won't obey. What wording in a law would produce the results you want? I suggest that the only possible answer is, NONE. In a world of complete lawlessness that you discribe, we are all at risk of being charged with a major felony while sitting quitely at home. In that world, even a court decision in your favor would be useless. A judgement against them would just go unpaid and the police would just refuse to obey. The only solution is to hide under the bed and hope that you are not next on the list to be oppressed.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... O.C.G.A.§ 16-11-137
(b) A person carrying a weapon shall not be subject to detention for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license.
TN places the burden on the citizen to prove compliance [a defense], where as GA places the burden on LE to prove non-compliance [probable cause]. If TN cops choose to not exercise their authority [officer discretion] every time they witness a visibly armed citizen that is they not being a rights violating goon.

... You mistake what Terry was actually about; it wasn't about the propriety of stopping a pair of men ...
Now right here proves that you are not reading my posts. I brought this up in post #51...six days ago.

What particularized crime? Shoplifting? Stickup? Pick pocketing? We will never know what crime McFadden believed was afoot because that is not in the record. All McFadden knew was that "...they didn't look right to me at the time." And that is exactly his justification for seizing them hoodlums. McFadden did not have probable cause and the courts created right then and there a exception for seizing a citizen without probable cause...RAS.

I believe that no cop must seize a citizen without probable cause...as the 4A indicates "...but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,..."

Other folks hold a different view of our 4A protection.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If your default position is that the police or other government officials will pay no attention to the law and just do as they want no matter what, the discussion will be very brief and accomplish nothing. In the case you describe where the police just do as they wish, what soulution would satisfy you? In the face of wording in the law that prohibits the exact behavior you suggest would occur, you scoff that they won't obey. What wording in a law would produce the results you want? I suggest that the only possible answer is, NONE. In a world of complete lawlessness that you discribe, we are all at risk of being charged with a major felony while sitting quitely at home. In that world, even a court decision in your favor would be useless. A judgement against them would just go unpaid and the police would just refuse to obey. The only solution is to hide under the bed and hope that you are not next on the list to be oppressed.
How about you read all of my posts in this thread before describing my default position. ...or place me on ignore.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
"Terry stops"

It's amazing to me how little people understand about Terry v. Ohio. There's no such thing as a "Terry stop"; what happened in that case was a consensual temporary detention - the first and least intrusive level of "arrest" (Norman French for "stop" - that was the official language in England from Wm. the Conqueror until Richard III died). That's the one in which the person detained has an absolute right to keep his mouth shut and walk away. Terry didn't do that. Instead, he impliedly consented to the interrogation. Having gotten to that point (and I agree that the cop's position was weak), the cop was concerned for his personal safety while in the presence of a "suspicious person" in a "high crime area". That's what led to the "pat-down" and subsequent arrest for illegal drug possession.

The case does not stand for the proposition that the cops have the right to stop you for the purpose of executing a "pat down" search of your person. You can just say, "I don't feel like chatting, just now, thank you." and walk away. Unless the cop already has reasonable suspicion for an "investigative detention", sufficient for the second level of arrest in which you are not free to leave (but are still not required to say anything or answer a bunch of dam'fool questions), any restraint would be actionable as a false arrest/illegal detention and could be criminally charged as an abduction.
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
If your default position is that the police or other government officials will pay no attention to the law and just do as they want no matter what, the discussion will be very brief and accomplish nothing. In the case you describe where the police just do as they wish, what soulution would satisfy you? In the face of wording in the law that prohibits the exact behavior you suggest would occur, you scoff that they won't obey. What wording in a law would produce the results you want? I suggest that the only possible answer is, NONE. In a world of complete lawlessness that you discribe, we are all at risk of being charged with a major felony while sitting quitely at home. In that world, even a court decision in your favor would be useless. A judgement against them would just go unpaid and the police would just refuse to obey. The only solution is to hide under the bed and hope that you are not next on the list to be oppressed.
How about you read all of my posts in this thread before describing my default position. ...or place me on ignore.

Are you not familiar with the word "IF" and its meaning? No thanks on the ignore demand. I will keep my ignore list for those "special people" of my own chosing. Volunteers are not accepted.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...the cop was concerned for his personal safety while in the presence of a "suspicious person" in a "high crime area". That's what led to the "pat-down" and subsequent arrest for illegal drug possession. ...

How was the cop's safety affected by the prohibited possession of drugs?

Rhetorical, of course. Cop safety is a great "tool" for finding anything the government didn't adequately control to get their cut.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Are you not familiar with the word "IF" and its meaning? No thanks on the ignore demand. I will keep my ignore list for those "special people" of my own chosing. Volunteers are not accepted.
If you have a relevant contribution to this thread regarding cops ignoring the 4A, with the court's blessings, then please post.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I understand that anyone can walk up to anyone else and attempt to engage in conversation...I still contend that you ignoring the cop will, in just about every case, result in the cop getting violent because you are ignoring him.

I am confident that Terry "consented" knowing this universal truth. I am confident that "IF" Terry had told McFadden to buzz-off McFadden would have seized and searched Terry anyway because, as McFadden stated "...they didn't look right to me at the time." McFadden had to prove to himself if his hunch, his gut, was right.

The point is never addressed by the court(s) where a no-knock is conducted and no evidence of criminal wrong doing is discovered. McFadden was lucky that Terry had a gat in his coat.

If Terry had been unarmed then Terry would/could/should have a cause of action against a unlawful seizure...yeah, I'm being sarcastic. No court is going to hogtie cops when their gut is found to be wrong, the courts will place the burden for a redress on the back of the wronged citizen.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.
Simply astonishing! The court approves of cops seizing citizens without probable cause counter to the 4A. "Restrained"...pfft!!!
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I understand that anyone can walk up to anyone else and attempt to engage in conversation...

Cops are on the public payroll. There should be no such thing as a personal conversation that can't be held against them while they are on duty.

Does this mean two cops can't talk about their girlfriends while driving between incidents? Of course not. Even apologists can see the difference between that and: "Hey, you there, I want to talk to you!"
 

gutshot II

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
782
Location
Central Ky.
If you have a relevant contribution to this thread regarding cops ignoring the 4A, with the court's blessings, then please post.

I understand that anyone can walk up to anyone else and attempt to engage in conversation...I still contend that you ignoring the cop will, in just about every case, result in the cop getting violent because you are ignoring him....snip...

Thank you for the invitation and permission to post in your thread.
I can assure you that the scenario that you suggest is very unlikely to happen, in my area. I have often walked away from LEO that have approached me and tried to engage me in conversations about my OC firearm. Sometimes I tell them that I am too busy to respond to any conversation and other times I just walk way without a word. At times, I will just stand mute and look them directly in the eye while saying nothing. Never has this resulted in any violence. The most common reaction is confusion and disbelief. LEO are unaccustomed to such treatment. I have left several pairs of LEO looking at one another and shrugging their shoulders, as if to say, "Now what do we do?" On a couple of rare occasions, a LEO has ordered me to stop and on those rare occasions I just don't respond to any of their conversation. They soon tire of that and move along. Most people feel compeled to respond by defending themselves and their actions to convince the LEO that they are law abiding citizens. LEO are trained to elicit incriminating and contradictory information. They do it every day and most of us can't beat them at it. I just refuse to play that game.
I realize that my words and opinions are highly valued but I have yet to see a LEO that would resort to violence just because I wouldn't talk to him. In the past, local courts have looked on such rare occurances with extreme disapproval. Of the few LEO that have used such tactics, several have lost their jobs and some have been found liable in court. If violence is a common reaction in your area, I understand your reluctance to assert your rights.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
gutshot [SIZE=3 said:
--snipped--Of the few Leo that have used such tactics, several have lost their jobs and some have been found liable in court.[/SIZE]
Qualified immunity down the rat hole.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Thank you for the invitation and permission to post in your thread.
You are welcome.
I can assure you that the scenario that you suggest is very unlikely to happen, in my area. I have often walked away from LEO that have approached me and tried to engage me in conversations about my OC firearm. ...
Great...now do this for every cop interaction you may have where you know that you have not violated the law.
... In the past, local courts have looked on such rare occurrances[sic] with extreme disapproval. Of the few LEO that have used such tactics, several have lost their jobs and some have been found liable in court. If violence is a common reaction in your area, I understand your reluctance to assert your rights.
Cites please.

Only once did a cop get violent, years ago, grabbed my arm when I did not respond to him as I was coming out of a c-store. Remained silent after I was arrested. Never cuffed, firearm not seized, never spoke. About 10 minutes later I was "free to go" and immediately went down to the cop shop and requested a audience with the senior cop on duty. Reminded him of RSMo 544.180 and that the language is very specific. Requested that he re-train his cops on how assaulting citizens being a criminal act. Reminded the senior cop that the c-store has it all on video and that I have a copy. Have not heard of a similar incident in my area since...but, that does not mean much.

Cops acting on a hunch will hide behind Terry v. Ohio when their hunch was wrong. No-knocks is the spawn of Terry v. Ohio. QI then protects cops' hunch when doing these home invasions because a "CI toldem that there was a whole bunch of lawbreaking was goin on in that thar house."

544.180. Arrest. — An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
No-knocks is the spawn of Terry v. Ohio. QI then protects cops' hunch when doing these home invasions because a "CI told 'em that there was a whole bunch of lawbreaking was goin on in that thar house."
I'm fairly sure that's not the purpose of a 'no-knock warrant'; a whole buncha law breakin' going on is unlikely to be acceptable for a warrant to be 'no-knock' as opposed to a regular warrant. The basis for no-knock warrants lies in Wilson v. Arkansas (1995).
 
Top