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

[gutshot II]

...snip...

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...snip...

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...

I am having trouble reconciling these two quotes. Which is it, "once, years ago" and "Have not heard of a similar incident in my area since" or "in just about every case"? It can't be both.

 

[OC for ME]

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).

The only reason for a no-knock is to prevent the destruction of evidence. The court gets it wrong on these cases quite often by injecting their anti-individual liberty bias where the 4A is concerned. They could have easily opined that no-knocks are offensive to the 4A and are always unreasonable to the 4A. Officer safety must never be a basis for authorizing a no-knock warrant. There is always a time and place to arrest criminal suspects where cops can better assure their safety. If a cop believes he has probable cause then announce it and himself when executing the warrant.

In his Facebook post, Renck also described how officers “flashbanged me down stairs then threw me to the ground and proceeded to hold me down with someone’s foot and aggressively cuff me…” Renck said he told officers he had a loaded gun in his pocket, to which the officer allegedly “rolled me over and yanked it out and said ‘of course you do because you are wanted for murder you piece of ****.’”

It was then that Renck “proceeded to tell them they got the wrong person and they kept telling me to shut the **** up.”

After the SWAT team “finally figured out I wasn’t the guy wanted for murder and literally just left my house without saying anything and proceeded to go to my neighbors.” Renck stated the incident resulted in damage to his home, including a door, door frame, carpet on the stairs, ceiling, living room floor and hallway “all because someone got the wrong house.”

“I am okay and could have easily been killed just thankful to be alive and my family okay,” Renck’s Facebook post stated. “I still don’t understand how you get the wrong damn house.”

http://clevelandbanner.com/stories/federal-agency-apologizes-for-raid-on-wrong-house,80676

This is another instance where no-knocks must never be authorized.

 

[OC for ME]

I am having trouble reconciling these two quotes. Which is it, "once, years ago" and "Have not heard of a similar incident in my area since" or "in just about every case"? It can't be both.

Of course it can be both, do you not bother to read any news.

The first is specific to me. You have in the past used a legal remedy, or informed that a legal remedy would be pursued if cops' offending behavior was not halted permanently. I did the same. Cops are not stupid, if they know citizens are watching they tend to be a wee bit more law abiding going forward. Is this due to they realizing the error of their ways out of the goodness of their heart, or knowing that the risk/cost of official sanction is too high, which gets us to them being a wee bit more law abiding.

The other is based on anecdotal evidence that many cops all across the country are routinely recorded not being accepting of being ignored. Then exceeding their authority (law breaking) to gain citizen compliance, as was recorded in Texas recently.

I understand that sometimes a cop approaches you to inform you that you left you headlights on, or that you dropped your wallet, as two examples. I never approach anyone where the conversations starts "Can I speak with you?" then inform them that they dropped their wallet or left their head lights on. I just announce "Excuse me, you dropped your wallet." or "Excuse me, you left your headlights on."

Would you ignore a cop in every instance if a cop approaches you.

 

[MAC702]

...I never approach anyone where the conversations starts "Can I speak with you?" then inform them that they dropped their wallet or left their head lights on. I just announce "Excuse me, you dropped your wallet." or "Excuse me, you left your headlights on."...

Well, that's because YOUR only goal is to help THEM.

 

[gutshot II]

Of course it can be both, do you not bother to read any news....snip...

Have you not heard of "fake news"? Do you place a great deal of confidence in the "news"? The answer to that question could explain some of your posts.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The only reason for a no-knock is to prevent the destruction of evidence. The court gets it wrong on these cases quite often by injecting their anti-individual liberty bias where the 4A is concerned. They could have easily opined that no-knocks are offensive to the 4A and are always unreasonable to the 4A. Officer safety must never be a basis for authorizing a no-knock warrant. There is always a time and place to arrest criminal suspects where cops can better assure their safety. If a cop believes he has probable cause then announce it and himself when executing the warrant.

This is another instance where no-knocks must never be authorized.

Yeah.... that's not what you said last time, is it?

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."

Not a single thing about 'destruction of evidence' and no-knock warrants wasn't even addressed in Terry

Forgive me for asking, but exactly WHY shouldn't officer safety be a concern of the courts? Isn't your safety a concern of the courts?

 

[OC for ME]

Yeah.... that's not what you said last time, is it?

Not a single thing about 'destruction of evidence' and no-knock warrants wasn't even addressed in Terry

Forgive me for asking, but exactly WHY shouldn't officer safety be a concern of the courts? Isn't your safety a concern of the courts?

The courts have zero interest in our safety. Else we would be able to defend against these no-knocks under the law, the cops would know this, and the cops doing them would be held to the most severe legal consequences. This is most certainly not the case. The courts/cops always recommend that we, or our survivors in some cases, seek a redress via a civil remedy.

Terry created RAS which is twisted into PC to have these no-knock warrants granted. Judges do not put much effort into questioning these cops...why would a cop lie...right? Thanks to Terry a cop will have his experience translated into facts where no facts (observed criminal activity) is observed.

 

[color of law]

Here, you guys need to read this USSC decision that just came down. It is only three pages long. Sorry, it's four pages by one sentence.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-742_c185.pdf

I'm interested in your thoughts. There is a little tidbit in the decision; a message to the lower courts.

 

[OC for ME]

Have you not heard of "fake news"? Do you place a great deal of confidence in the "news"? The answer to that question could explain some of your posts.

Sometimes a video does show the whole story, contrary to what cops would have us believe that what we saw with our own eyes was not what we saw with our own eyes. News is not only delivered by "accredited news" outlets.

 

[OC for ME]

A small knock at "clearly established" perhaps? Could be the beginning of a sea change if we are lucky.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Here, you guys need to read this USSC decision that just came down. It is only three pages long. Sorry, it's four pages by one sentence.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-742_c185.pdf

I'm interested in your thoughts. There is a little tidbit in the decision; a message to the lower courts.

Mary Anne Sause Case
Government officials tell Mary Anne Sause to stop praying in her own home

The First Amendment protects the religious liberties of all Americans to pray and peacefully exercise their religious beliefs – especially in their own homes. After police officers came to the home of Mary Anne Sause in 2013 to respond to an alleged minor noise complaint, they told her to prepare to go to jail and ordered her to stop praying in order to harass her. Police officers should have known that ordering a woman to stop praying in her own home without a legitimate law enforcement reason violates the First Amendment. In June 2017, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the officers were shielded from legal liability even though the court assumed the officers violated Sause’s First Amendment rights. First Liberty and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to reverse the decision in the case. In June of 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision and ordered that court to take another look at the case.

The only 'decision' is that the Tenth Circuit must look at the case again.

Her case would seem to be that the officers only told her to 'stop praying' in order to harass her. Very likely the officers will testify that her praying was only done in order to delay their investigation into the complaint against her. In their decision the court recognized the right to pray, but also noted that it cannot be used in to delay or obstruct law enforcement's ability to do its job. IOW one can't suddenly decide to pray for 4 hours simply to avoid being placed in the back of a patrol car and be taken to jail.

 

[color of law]

A small knock at "clearly established" perhaps? Could be the beginning of a sea change if we are lucky.

Possibly, but how about this?

Without considering these matters, neither the free exercise issue nor the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity can be resolved. Thus, petitioner’s choice to abandon her Fourth Amendment claim on appeal did not obviate the need to address these matters.

The Supremes are saying that even though the plaintiff did not raise a constitutional violation the lower courts cannot turn a blind eye; they have to address the constitutional violation.

 

[MAC702]

... In their decision the court recognized the right to pray, but also noted that it cannot be used in to delay or obstruct law enforcement's ability to do its job. IOW one can't suddenly decide to pray for 4 hours simply to avoid being placed in the back of a patrol car and be taken to jail.

Thank you for the summary as to what the case about.

 

[OC for ME]

if I read the order correctly, the court has no idea what happened in the apartment. Back to the lower court to place facts into the record. But, the cops now know what to say to the lower court...the court helped the cops to get their story straight.

 

[color of law]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...&q=MARY+ANNE+SAUSE&hl=en&as_sdt=4,106,120,144

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Fourth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges that Officer Lindsey violated her Fourth Amendment rights by refusing to let her enter her bedroom while he was in her apartment. That claim is not sufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that she permitted the officers to enter her apartment. She does not allege that either of the officers searched her apartment or her person. The officer's alleged refusal to allow Plaintiff to enter her bedroom while she was being questioned by the officers does not constitute a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff has thus failed to show that Officer Lindsey violated a clearly established right; the Court finds that he is entitled to qualified immunity and Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim is dismissed.

 

[user]

Yeah.... that's not what you said last time, is it?

Not a single thing about 'destruction of evidence' and no-knock warrants wasn't even addressed in Terry

Forgive me for asking, but exactly WHY shouldn't officer safety be a concern of the courts? Isn't your safety a concern of the courts?

Very good question. However, none of the appellate opinions I've read that cited "officer safety" as grounds for an illegal seizure of personal property (taking personal property from the person of another by threats, force, or intimidation constitutes "robbery", and taking personal property from the person of another valued in excess of five dollars is grand larceny, both felonies in Va.) ever relied on any facts that would tend to suggest that the officer involved was ever in any kind of danger, realized or threatened. The cops never cited any factual support for a reasonably held, good faith belief that they were actually subjected to any kind of threat.

 

[OC for ME]

Terry v. Ohio is nothing but a court approved means of depriving you of your individual liberty and private property right based only on a cop's gut feeling...experience must not replace observed violations of the law.

And by extension a no-knock warrant is a court approved home invasion without cause in many cases.

Then the Heien decision lets idiot cops make "reasonable mistakes" due to their inability to read and then understand the printed English language.

 

[user]

...
Terry created RAS which is twisted into PC to have these no-knock warrants granted. Judges do not put much effort into questioning these cops...why would a cop lie...right? Thanks to Terry a cop will have his experience translated into facts where no facts (observed criminal activity) is observed.

Don't buy into the mischaracterization (technical term, "lie"): Terry v. Ohio did not create an opportunity for reasonable suspicion. In order to elevate a consensual investigatory stop into detention, the cop has to have reasonable suspicion FIRST. Terry said that the level of arrest could be elevated from "stop and chat" to "you're being detained" IF the cop had reasonable suspicion that crime was afoot and that you had something to do with the crime. And, if he has a reasonably held, good faith belief (which the cop in Terry actually did not have) that he or other innocent persons were faced with danger from your having a weapon in your possession, THEN he can pat you down and check for "officer safety".

There is no such thing as a "Terry stop" - the levels of arrest are 1: consensual stop and chat, from which one is free to walk away without talking; 2: investigatory detention in which one is not free to leave but need not talk; and 3: full custodial arrest. Terry v. Ohio did not justify the stop, but said the pat-down was ok, given the officer's pansy-assed "fear for his life".

 

[color of law]

And, where open carry of a firearm is a protected constitutional right, in of itself, cannot rise to the level of “reasonable suspicion” that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27 (1968). More than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch’” is needed to stop and frisk an individual; the officer must identify “specific and articulable facts” of criminality. Id. at 27.

The Fourth Amendment protects “the people” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The guarantee does not prevent the police from initiating “consensual encounter” with individuals—from approaching them on public streets and in other public places and asking them questions. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200–0 (2002). Of course, you don't have to answer their questions and you can just walk away.