"Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims

Quote:

http://reason.com/blog/show/120331.html
"Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost," the justices said in the unsigned opinion. "The resulting frustration, embarrassment and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the 4th Amendment is not violated," the court concluded.
-
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the police can break into your home, rouse you from sleep, hold you naked at gunpoint, and—even if you're completely innocent—you have no recourse, so long as the warrant was valid.

It was an 8-1 decision.

The police apparently didn't know that the suspects they were after no longer lived at the residence, and didn't bother to check to see that the house had been recently purchased by new owners several months earlier. The new owners were white. The suspects the police were looking for were black. And they were wanted not on charges related to violent crime, but for identity fraud.

The Hudson case basically gave police carte blanche to violate the knock-and-announce rule without having to worry about application of the exclusionary rule. This case says that innocent civilians should have to bear the humiliating, terrifying, and possibly dangerous costs of mistakes made by agents of the state. It's a horrible ruling.

What do you think of the ruling on the Hudson case?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Don't you think it could be both their fault? Besides, how is the judge supposed to know that the original suspects moved out of the house if it wasn't investigated by the cops?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If he had done so he would've been charged with cop-killing.

Quote:

That's my POINT. If the warrant was issued there was either (A) enough evidence for it to not be the Cop's fault or (B) it's the judge's fault for not demanding more evidence.

Well now thanks to this ruling, having to demand that police know that the suspects live in the same house they say they do will never be a necessity.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Which he apparently didn't. What defines a legitimate warrant? When the judge declares it so?

Scratch all of that, we're losing sight of what this case was actually about, which is that the police conducted the search wrongly and that the victims are entitled to compensation. Both sides went into the case under the assumption that the warrant was proper.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

Entitled under what statute? We live in a culture where everyone thinks they're "entitled" to just about anything they want. Also, how exactly did they conduct the search wrongly? They went to the location described by the warrant and conducted a search. Seems pretty straightforward.

They used dynamic entry tactics and held the suspects at gunpoint when they were issued a warrant for identity theft, which is a non-violent crime. If there was a warrant issued for a drug raid or a computer seizure there would've been cause for a dynamic raid to prevent the destruction of evidence, but they were only issued a warrant to apprehend suspects.

What the cops did was thuggish overkill, and they should be held accountable for their idiocy.

Quote:

I may be a complete fool, but since when are the authorities obligated to pay any compensation for wrongful actions on their behalf?

People have been locked up for years and years while being innocent of a crime they were convicted of. After being determined as innocent, they were set free, with no compensation (that I read about) for the years of life the authorities claimed from them.

Why would the authorities be obligated to pay compensation over a much smaller issue?

Besides, I thought that the police are "immune" to having to pay damages or whatever in cases like these. I could be wrong, since, you know, I'm not an expert.

A lot of times when those wrongly imprisoned are released without compensation it's because they confessed under coercion, and since they confessed they aren't entitled to compensation.

Recently a man convicted of rape and imprisoned for decades was found to be innocent with DNA evidence and has been entitled to 5 million dollars compensation.

Because it's possible for police to get away with negligent behavior without having to give compensation to their victims doesn't mean that they should.

I was speaking idiomatically.

The reason both sides in the case presumed that the warrant was based on probable cause, is because the nature of identity theft means that everything is up for grabs. Even with a different race for the inhabitants, that doesn't exclude the possibility of an identity theft ring.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Don't be stupid.

FELIPE NO

Sounds reasonable.

How ya doing, buddy?