Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


"Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 08:44 AM Local time: May 22, 2007, 08:44 AM #1 of 24
"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.
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 09:50 AM #2 of 24
If the warrant is valid, how is it the fault of the police? Go after the judge that issued the warrant if anything.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:04 AM Local time: May 22, 2007, 10:04 AM #3 of 24
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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:12 AM #4 of 24
If the warrant is valid, how is it the fault of the police? Go after the judge that issued the warrant if anything.
I was under the impression that the cops had to provide evidence to justify a warrant before the judge issued one.

It's not the judge's job to do all the leg work, is it? I thought that was the cops' job.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:45 AM #5 of 24
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.

Most amazing jew boots
metavian
Carob Nut


Member 1717

Level 6.19

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 10:49 AM Local time: May 22, 2007, 11:49 AM #6 of 24
I guess it was just a matter of time before it happened. Just wondering what would happen if the home owner had shot one of the police officer thinking he was been robbed?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Check out this neat Media Player that I programmed
Jason's Media Player Version: 4.21


Looking for MP3's check out my site
Metavian's FTP
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 11:16 AM Local time: May 22, 2007, 11:16 AM #7 of 24
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.

FELIPE NO
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 11:19 AM #8 of 24
Except that the Supreme Court didn't rule on the validity of the warrant. They ruled that given a valid warrant, the police are allowed to execute it. So your conclusion that cops have carte blanche to ignore who lives at places is faulty. The judge just has to wake up and demand a reasonable amount of evidence.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 11:22 AM Local time: May 22, 2007, 11:22 AM #9 of 24
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

Last edited by Bradylama; May 22, 2007 at 11:42 AM.
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 11:49 AM #10 of 24
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.
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 11:56 AM #11 of 24
Quote:
Which he apparently didn't. What defines a legitimate warrant? When the judge declares it so?
Pretty much, yes. That is the point of having to go to a judge to get a warrant and all.
Quote:
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.
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.

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


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 12:18 PM Local time: May 22, 2007, 12:18 PM #12 of 24
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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 12:38 PM Local time: May 22, 2007, 06:38 PM #13 of 24
Entitled under what statute? We live in a culture where everyone thinks they're "entitled" to just about anything they want.
I would be inclined to agree with you that Brady's choice of the word "entitled" is not correct. However I would agree with a statement to the effect that the "victims" (also a contentious word in this context) should be entitled to compensation.

I say that the term "victim" is contentious in this context because it can easily be argued that if the proper procedure has been followed in this case, there is no wrongdoing for the subject of such as search to be the victim of. The term "victim" clearly implies wrong doing or ill treatment according to my dictionary.

With that said, I personally sympathise with Brady's use of the term here. I believe that the family in this case were indeed treated badly by the police. I merely wish to point out that if the court has stated that proper procedure has been followed, then that is the legal fact of the matter.

Quote:
lso, how exactly did they conduct the search wrongly? They went to the location described by the warrant and conducted a search. Seems pretty straightforward.
I must admit that there is a case to be made that the search was not conducted wrongly. The Fourth Amendment states that a search must be supported by a warrant, and that the issue of a warrant must be supported by probable cause. The definition of probable cause is that there must be a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, not an absolute certainty. It is possible to have a reasonable belief that does not prove to be true in fact.

However, the warrant was not valid. The reason for that is there was no probable cause to implicate the current owners of the house in question. No real attempt had apparently been made to verify such important details before the search was conducted. The warrant was effectively no longer valid or necessary. The failiure to confirm these details is negligence, pure and simple.

That's why some compensation should be due to these people. A search usually entails some degree of property damage, not to mention fear and distress for the innocent. Can you really say it was a reasonable search, when the people who were actually being investigated had moved away? If not, then it should properly fall under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Not because they were innocent, but because the warrant wasn't truly valid, in the absense of probable cause.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 12:43 PM Local time: May 22, 2007, 12:43 PM #14 of 24
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?
Soluzar
De Arimasu!


Member 1222

Level 37.11

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 12:54 PM Local time: May 22, 2007, 06:54 PM #15 of 24
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.
...

I've got to admit, that's a point that eluded me. I suppose that does tend to invalidate my argument.

FELIPE NO
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2007, 03:38 PM Local time: May 22, 2007, 01:38 PM #16 of 24
So, if I'm entitled to compensation when the cops screw up, does that mean if I contest a traffic ticket and win the state should pay for my emotional trauma?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Bradylama
Banned


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 01:37 AM Local time: May 23, 2007, 01:37 AM #17 of 24
Don't be stupid.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 02:09 AM Local time: May 23, 2007, 12:09 AM #18 of 24
Knock-and-announce isn't a necessarily guaranteed by the 4th Amendment, the text hardly defines it as necessary. And knock-and-announce doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the warrant itself. While the Arkansas case in 1995 did hold that the exclusionary principle could apply in cases where knock-and-announce was violated, it was not a steadfast rule.

Originally Posted by Hudson v. Michigan
The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Pp. 3–7.
Originally Posted by Wilson v. Arkansas (application of knock-and-announce)
This is not to say, of course, that every entry must be preceded by an announcement. The Fourth Amendment's flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests. As even petitioner concedes, the common law principle of announcement was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.

...

We simply hold that although a search or seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective if police officers enter without prior announcement, law enforcement interests may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry.
And Wilson was only overturned in this case on the grounds of knock-and-announce that the Arkansas Supreme Court didn't address the sufficiency of law enforcement's application of the warrant. They didn't hold that 4th was necessarily violated and I don't know if the Supreme Court heard another case between Wilson and Hudson.

How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand

Last edited by BlueMikey; May 23, 2007 at 09:23 AM.
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 04:08 PM Local time: May 23, 2007, 02:08 PM #19 of 24
How about my lost wages for the day?

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


Member 18

Level 51.14

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 04:10 PM Local time: May 23, 2007, 04:10 PM #20 of 24
Sounds reasonable.

How ya doing, buddy?
BlueEdge
Chocobo


Member 7460

Level 12.76

May 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 05:03 PM #21 of 24
I believe the fault lies with the police in the scenario from the article. Either they got the warrant a while ago and didn't execute the raid or they just got the warrant but failed to accurately trail their suspects. Did they just forget about these guys for a couple of months and then decided to go grab them? Yeah, it takes a while to get warrants, but you still have to make sure they don't run away.

I just found it interesting how the arresting officers didn't seem to even know what their suspects looked like.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Divest
Banned


Member 3267

Level 26.23

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 05:45 AM Local time: Jun 7, 2007, 03:45 AM #22 of 24
It doesn't necessarily matter what the suspects look like.

Like Brady said, just because they're not the same people doesn't rule out the possibility of an identity theft ring.

For example if you raid a drug house and come across people besides the suspects it doesn't mean they're immediately innocent. They could be just as involved and guilty as the intended suspects - maybe pushers or dealers themselves.

Note: This is in response to BlueEdge's post and NOT the rest of the thread.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Last edited by Divest; Jun 7, 2007 at 05:47 AM.
BlueEdge
Chocobo


Member 7460

Level 12.76

May 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 11:59 PM #23 of 24
True, but I still think the cops should have kept a better eye on the suspects and their actions.

FELIPE NO
Reznor
Good Chocobo


Member 336

Level 19.24

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2007, 03:57 PM #24 of 24
Can we just get rid of the government and the police, yet?

BRB GONNA KILL ME SOME COPS.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > "Tough Shit" for Innocent Raid Victims

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.