The problem with no-knocks and "informants"

[Jack 99]

Speaks for itself:

----------------------------

No-knocks net little jail time

Of suspects arrested in drug raids last year, only two felons went to prison, statistics show

By Kevin Flynn and Lou Kilzer
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writers


Denver police targeted 146 suspects in
no-knock drug raids last year.

A third of those suspects ended up facing felony
charges.

And, of those, two were sent to prison.

In fact, felony arrests from no-knock drug raids
in Denver are far less likely to result in prison
sentences than overall felony arrests, a study by
the Denver Rocky Mountain News found.

Here's how the statistics break down: 4 percent
of the no-knock felons went to prison
compared with 21 percent of all Denver felony
defendants.

The News analysis of search warrants, police
reports and court records shows that if prison
time is the measure, no-knock raids are a fairly
ineffective tool in the city's war on drugs.

The no-knock tactic has come under increased
scrutiny since officers raided the wrong house in
September and shot to death northwest Denver
resident Ismael Mena.

Of the 49 people charged with felonies as the
result of 1999 no-knock drug raid arrests,
nearly all got probation, community service,
deferred judgments, or a month or two in
Denver County Jail.

Two people -- or 4 percent of those charged --
were sent to prison. One got three years
because he was already on probation. The
other received five years because he was a
parolee.

By comparison, Denver filed 5,300 felony cases in 1998 (the last year for
which overall figures are available), 2,145 of them drug-related. Of the
5,300 charged, 1,138 went to prison.

District Attorney Bill Ritter, who is serving on a panel examining the use of
no-knock raids, said the findings are significant.

"That's an important thing to know because no-knocks are so invasive,"
said Ritter.

"That's an important statistic to have out there."

Ritter's office is responsible for plea-bargaining the vast majority of drug
cases. That happens because their numbers overwhelm court resources,
according to the district attorney.

Community activists, defense lawyers and others question the wisdom of
no-knock raids in light of such leniency. Officers risk their lives and those
of people inside when they burst unannounced into a house looking for
drugs.

"The war on drugs is a big joke, and it's full of hypocrisy," said Craig
Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor who opposed Ritter in the last
election and is now a defense attorney.

"I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but when you have that violent
intrusion on people's homes with so little results, you have to ask why."

Some say the Denver Drug Court is the problem. Started in 1994 as a
way to divert routine drug abusers from prison, the court now often frees
drug pushers, some of whom are charged with several felonies.

Almost all of the 1999 no-knock cases were targeted at people suspected
of being dealers, the News' study shows. Often, the tips went
unsubstantiated and little in the way of narcotics was recovered.

The problem doesn't stem only from the work of inexperienced street
cops, which city officials have maintained.

Even veteran narcotics detectives sometimes seek no-knock warrants
based on the word of an informant and without conducting undercover
buys to try to verify the tips.

"People have been asking the police for more accountability," said Leroy
Lemos of the Justice for Mena Committee. The community organization
sprung up in the aftermath of the September no-knock raid that left Mena
dead.

The raid was at the wrong house, and the officer who wrote the search
warrant affidavit, Joseph Bini, has been charged with perjury. The SWAT
team members were cleared of wrongdoing because they said Mena
aimed a gun at them before they fired.

"No-knock raids are being used loosely with little regard to public safety,"
Lemos said. "The more information we receive about the effectiveness of
no-knock warrants, and also about where they are being served in
communities of people of color, it seems mighty suspicious."

Capt. John Costigan, commander of the Denver Police vice and narcotics
bureau, said he expects fewer no-knock raids but they won't be
eliminated.

"Some are necessary," he said. "Otherwise, you're putting the officers in
danger if no-knocks are no longer available. The drug business is very
dangerous."

Officer Bini wrote seven no-knock affidavits in 1999, according to
records on file in Denver District Court. Target suspects were named in
three of them. Records show one felony case filed as a result of Bini's
raids.

A prior offender, that person pleaded guilty and got three years on
probation from drug court even though he was on a deferred judgment at
the time in the previous drug case. Under deferred judgment, if the
defendant stays out of trouble for a set period of time, the conviction will
be wiped out.

Other than the two suspects who went straight to prison, nearly all the
cases were plea-bargained. Two of those went to prison later for violating
their terms of probation. Three others were given 120 days in boot camp
and are eligible for release if they complete the program. Two are out
already, one comes up in May.

Two other cases were dismissed. Another was reduced to a misdemeanor
after what was thought to be cocaine turned out to be marijuana in a bust
in the Barnum neighborhood.

"A no-knock warrant ought to be an extraordinary investigative
technique," said Rick Kornfeld, the attorney who defended the
46-year-old Barnum resident whose home was raided by a SWAT team
on Feb. 28, 1999.

"It's a pretty intrusive device and you hope that police use discretion,"
Kornfeld said. "I think the boilerplate nature of some of these no-knock
affidavits ought to be a concern."

Kornfeld's client eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of
possession of drug paraphernalia after being jailed on a felony count
involving cocaine possession. No cocaine had been found, however.
Other charges were dropped.

Nor did it appear that the man was "dealing a large quantity of illegal
narcotics," as a confidential informant tipped police.

In this case, an experienced narcotics detective went only on the word of
the informant, who he said had been reliable "on several occasions."

The detective also revealed that the informant had bought drugs from the
suspect in the past but hadn't done so recently because of a dispute over
money.

Although this information should raise questions about the informant's
motives, Denver police sought and obtained a no-knock warrant from
County Judge Aleene Ortiz-White without further investigation such as
doing their own "controlled buy" to verify that the suspect was a dealer.

Instead of finding a significant "crack house" operation as the informant
alleged, police busted down the door of an apparent pot smoker in order
to obtain, in the end, a municipal court plea to possessing paraphernalia.

Police Chief Gerry Whitman said the department needs to strive for more
"consistent quality" in preparing for no-knock raids.

"We have to replicate what the narcotics bureau does almost flawlessly,"
he said, acknowledging that the Barnum case shows that even with
narcotics detectives, problems can happen.

Informants' identities are protected when police can obtain the evidence
they need in a raid. That way, prosecutors don't need to rely on the
testimony of an earlier transaction with the informant, and the informant
can continue to be useful to police.

"If informants knew they had to testify, we wouldn't have informants,"
Ritter said.

Often, information given by confidential sources goes unsubstantiated. In
many of last year's raids, the News reported last month, no drugs or much
less than expected were found.

In one no-knock raid set up by officer Bini, he and his partner Dan
Andrews conducted an investigation that involved just 30 minutes of
surveillance. From a hiding place, they watched a house on Humboldt
Street as people came and left.

Then, they followed a visitor and stopped him elsewhere. They found a
rock of crack cocaine on him. The man said he bought it at the Humboldt
Street house and had been doing so for a month.

Without any further investigation to rule out the possibility that the man was
lying -- he could have had the crack cocaine prior to going to the house --
Bini asked the judge for a no-knock warrant.

Bini told the judge the same house had been searched three months earlier
by narcotics detectives, and that they found nothing -- another potential
red flag.

The News found no record of this earlier search warrant in Denver District
Court files, although it appears in police dispatch records.

Bini also said he and Andrews recovered a small amount of marijuana
from the house during an earlier consensual search, but doesn't say
anything about crack cocaine being there.

A day later, the Humboldt Street house was raided, but instead of finding
a major crack dealing operation, Bini confiscated a VCR, two compact
disc players and several hats.

"Snitches give inaccurate information sometimes," attorney Kornfeld said.
"They can create crime where none exists. My client wasn't who the snitch
said he was."

Assistant District Attorney Chuck Lepley said only one of Denver's seven
criminal court judges presides over a courtroom devoted to drug offenses.
The judge deals with 1,600 of the 2,300 drug cases filed a year, which is
like "trying to pour the Mississippi River through a straw."

No trials or violent drug crimes are handled in drug court, only plea
bargains.

Defendants arrested in no-knock raids make up a very small percentage of
the drug cases filed annually by Ritter's office, just over 2 percent.

Ritter said no-knock raids may produce proportionately fewer criminal
cases because of potential courtroom proof problems linking drugs found
at the scene of a raid to a specific suspect in the house. Without that
certainty, the chance of winning a case is less.

By contrast, a street arrest in which drugs are found in a suspect's pocket
or automobile has a better chance to hold up in court.

Because of the increased danger no-knock raids present to police officers
and suspects, and in light of the Mena case, a city panel is examining the
continued use of the tactic.

Ritter serves on the panel with Denver County Chief Judge Robert
Patterson and Safety Manager Butch Montoya.

"We are looking at whether or not we can satisfy community concerns, use
less invasive techniques than a no-knock warrant, and still assure officer
safety," Ritter said.

Ritter and others say the number of prosecutions isn't the only measure of
the effectiveness of no-knock raids -- which are certain to remain in the
arsenal of the Denver Police Department even if the review panel
recommends tighter requirements.

Mayor Wellington Webb has said that he doesn't intend to prohibit them.

No-knocks have been effective in closing crack houses where they have
been endangering neighborhoods even if no one is arrested, Ritter said.

Silverman agreed that the goal is more than making arrests and
convictions.

"Nobody likes crack houses in their neighborhood," he said. "Even if they
shut down crack houses without felony charges, they consider it
successful."

Lepley said the number of prison terms isn't the only yardstick for success.

"In terms of making a difference for the community as a whole," he said,
"all of these things play together. We can walk around just carrying a
hammer and treat everyone like a nail, but you have to use every tool in
the toolbox."

[LawDog]

Okay, from what I read, the Denver Courts are giving drug offenders probation, judicial deferrment and other easy terms and this means that the 'no-knocks' are bad business.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Remember, the LEO's don't prosecute, the courts do.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Ritter's office is responsible for plea-bargaining the vast majority of drug
cases. That happens because their numbers overwhelm court resources,
according to the district attorney.[/quote]

If the critter isn't sent to prison because of a plea-bargain, this fact has nothing to do with whether of not a 'no-knock' warrant was used.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That happens because their numbers overwhelm court resources,[/quote]

If the number of drug dealers is overwhelming court resources, then offhand I'd say the LEO's are doing a fine job.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Of the 49 people charged with felonies as the
result of 1999 no-knock drug raid arrests,
nearly all got probation, community service,
deferred judgments, or a month or two in
Denver County Jail.[/quote]

*sigh* Remember this part the next time someone tells you that kids go to prison for smoking a joint.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>the court now often frees
drug pushers, some of whom are charged with several felonies.[/quote]

Now this has what to do with 'no-knock' warrants? Or LEOs?

Sounds like Denver needs to clean out it's Judicial system.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A prior offender, that person pleaded guilty and got three years on
probation from drug court even though he was on a deferred judgment at
the time in the previous drug case. Under deferred judgment, if the
defendant stays out of trouble for a set period of time, the conviction will
be wiped out.[/quote]

It's terrible the way the system picks on, and abuses, drug users. Someone should call their Congresscritter.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"We are looking at whether or not we can satisfy community concerns, use
less invasive techniques than a no-knock warrant, and still assure officer
safety," Ritter said.[/quote]

I think we've covered that subject ad nauseum

Good article, once you realize that the LEO's and 'no-knock' warrants don't have a thing to do with how lenient the Courts are.

LawDog

[bruels]

The article is one of several questioning the validity and need for no-knock warrants after Denver police hit the wrong house, killed the head of the household, and found no drugs. The drug house was next door.

The chief of police was fired and the officer who obtained the warrant was charged with perjury in his affidavit in support of issuance of a search warrant.

The chief of police later complained the Community Oriented Police program, supported and funded by the federal government, was causing inexperienced officers to undertake complex investigations. It was a weak wee-wee excuse for his failing to ensure his officers were adequately supervised.

This whole thing is a hot issue in Denver, but it has not yet attracted national attention.


[This message has been edited by bruels (edited March 13, 2000).]

[Libertarian]

A good article but it missed one point; how many deaths are attributed to no-knocks? How many of those deaths were of innocent people who thought they were being attacked?

There is absolutely no reason that the police could not surround the house or lay an ambush to take their target without resorting to these (for lack of a better word) Gestapo tactics.

If they are moving to prevent a murder or a bombing, the police might have good reason to kick a door, but otherwise they should wait. The cops really do have the advantage of time on their side.

[mrat]

I agree with Lawdog, the article sounds like a problem with the courts not no knock notices. Just because the courts are not being stiff enough with penalties does not mean there should not be no knocks. I have always said if the general public knew what crap BGs were sentenced to in the court process, they would be pissed.

I keep reading about no knock warrants on this site and GT like warrants are regulary no knock endorsed. There countless warrants issued and served in this country on a daily basis, no knocks are an extremely small percentage. What am I basing this on you ask? I have been an LEO for ten years and have served countless warrants and I have yet to be involved in a no knock. Some of these warrants included BGs that we knew were armed and had shot people and we still had to knock. So maybe I'm missing something or maybe the rest of the country is issuing no knocks as a daily routine.

[TAZ]

As previosly stated the article misses some key points. Why are these no knock victims given lesser sentences than regular arrests? Is it bacsue the no knocks turn out to be jokes as in no real evidence/probable cause and the scared [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]less victim cops a plea. Is it cause the justices feel sorry for the poor downtrodden victim... We dont know why these no knock victims got lesser punishments. Second it does not address the issue of how many wrongfull deaths and or porsecutions resulted from BS raids, but that was not the scope of the issue.

As for what does this article show about the us eof no-knock warrants used in Denver. It shows that the use of a very dangerous, invasive and expensive(special teams, weapons and training) procedure does not necessarily lead to a greater public good. The public good in this case being drug dealers staying off the streets. Why this is the case is not defined in this article, but it does question the wisdom of using a costly tactic that does not have a very good return on the investment. Chances are the reason is that the "regular" arrests take more time and effort and as such more and better/stronger evidence can be gathered.

------------------
If stupidity hurt, liberals would be walking around in agony.

[Jack 99]

LawDog,

I thought this would be self-apparent. Obviously you're a cop and I'm not sure if I'm going to offend you, but oh well. You probably see yourself as being disconnected from "the system". You do your job and don't see the relationship of what you do to the Big Picture.

Look at it this way:

The "problem" is 2-fold. One, judges are rubber stamping no-knocks too often and cops are not double checking sources and people just occasionally get killed. Ooops. Oh well, what can you do, right?

Well, there's supposed to be some checks and balances within the system and I'm personally not comfortable with the idea that Joe Blow cop (no matter how "good" his intentions are) can call up a judge and get a no-knock warrant in 10 minutes. If they can't even get the address right sometimes, how valid is the rest of the info on these warrants? Its pretty obvious no-knocks are being issued without too much scrutiny when they should be highly scrutinized.

Second, the end result is jack-sh%*. The courts are a joke, we're running out of jail space, there's no political will to lock up users, and so the end result of aggregious violations of civil rights and deaths of innocent victims is just about zero.

The end result in Denver is one dead innocent person who probably thought he was in the middle of a home invasion robbery, and two felons go to prison, one a parolee and one on probation who SHOULD have been getting drug tested anyway (you could probably make the case they should have been behind bars). The cops should never have had to do a no-knock on these jokers, they should have been reporting in at least weekly to their parole officers.

So what's the picture like nationwide? How many innocent people have died and what's been gained? How many people's rights have been violated? In how many cases could the same results been achieved without a no-knock? Is it worth it?

And now the questions that will probably tick you off: are cops using no-knocks so frequently because they get a kick out of the adrenaline rush? Is there a John Wayne aspect to this that cops really dig? Do you think there are cops who joined the force just so they could do this kind of stuff?

I used to think the "Drug War" was necessary and I still think legalization would cause more harm than good, but there's not too much REAL support, even in the court system apparently, for truly enforcing the laws against drugs. If we're going to have a pretend war on drugs, we may as well not have one at all and stop F'ing with the Constitution.

I realize cops aren't bad people, they're just trying do their jobs and stay safe. But you're at the leading edge of the drip drip erosion of the Bill of Rights. You can't disconnect yourself and say "that's a problem with the courts/prisons/politicians/whatever".
Departments have to take responsibility and monitor themselves to see if the end result is worth it, otherwise by just serving no-knocks and turning the felons over to the courts and saying "not our problem now," you will undermine credibility with the public when some intrepid reporter does the numbers.

Nomex on.

[LawDog]

Breath, Jack.

My problem with the article that started this thread was the author of the article trying to correlate 'no-knock' warrants with "Little Jail Time".

The one doesn't have a thing to do with the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> just occasionally get killed. Ooops. Oh well, what can you
do, right? [/quote]

*Sigh*

Just once, I'd like someone who throws a line like that at me to show me where I said anything like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Joe Blow cop (no matter how "good" his intentions are) can call up
a judge and get a no-knock warrant in 10 minutes[/quote]

IF Denver PD is getting warrants that easily, then some judges in Denver need to get canned.

I've never gotten a 'no-knock' warrant that easily, and from the responses of the other LEO's and ex-LEO's, not many others do, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So what's the picture like nationwide? How many innocent people have died and what's been
gained?[/quote]

Good question. What is the picture like nationwide?

Given the Media's understandable tendency to publicize the deaths of innocents, how may of these tragic incidents have occured across the Nation, versus the number of warrants served daily?
Would someone do research on how many people are killed daily by speeders, vs. how many are killed daily by LEOs? I think the Physician slaughter rate vs. LEO slaughter rate has been rather well documented here.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...turning the felons over to the courts and saying "not
our problem now," [/quote]

Hmm.
If the Court is determined to hand out Probation, Deferred Adjudication or cut the critters loose, what are the LEO's and Departments supposed to do? LEOs do not judge. They are not the jury. Once we make a case against a critter, arrest him and bind him over for trial, it's out of our hands. And rightfully so. Unless you want me to stand up in Court and dispute the verdict of the Judge and Jury.

"Defendant is sentenced to five months Probation."

"Excuse me, Your Honor, but me an' this Mossberg think you need to reconsider that there verdict."

Tempting, but I'll have to pass.

Jack 99, go through your local Law Enforcement Academy. Join on with a local Resderve force. Take a look at how the system actually works. Then show us how to make it better. We'll listen.

LawDog

[CassidyGT]

Sorry Gents but the real point here is that the drug war is patently unconstitutional as per the Ninth Amendment.

Therefore anyone, including police officers, who enforce these kinds of brazenly illegal laws are breaking the laws themselves.

I recommend Vin Suprynowicz's book 'Send in the Waco Killers' for further for clarification.

This book should be required reading for everyone. It is not just about Waco, but that is covered as well. The most important book I have read.

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
[email protected]
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/...nsite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

[Jack 99]

Lawdog,

I never said that you had said anything about people getting killed being acceptable. But there does seem to be an attitude out there that "Sh&* happens." Well, when that sh&* happens, someone often gets buried. Whether its an innocent civilian getting killed in a no-knock or someone getting killed in a high-speed pursuit, there seem to be "acceptable losses" in the war on crime.

You also missed the big picture. The Denver PD executed a no-knock almost every other day (146 in one year).

The end result:

--A dead citizen (no mention was made if there were other wrong address situations).

--2 Dopers go to jail. Both were involved with "the system" and should have been monitored anyway, if not in prison. Why did the PD have to break down the door? Aren't they coming in for regular parole/probation officer meetings?

--The rights of EVERYBODY are violated. Yup, today's "War on Drugs" can be tomorrow's "War on Guns" or "War on Terrorists" or whatever. Then it's MY door someone wants to kick in. Hell, according to "The Militia Watchdog" and "Jane's" I already belong to several extremist organizations.

I'm guessing, but I'd say that if they had really netted any drug kingpins during these raids, they'd have put them away for life and put it on the front page of the paper. As it stands, it looks like they kicked in the doors of a bunch of users and a couple of low-level dealers who probably wouldn't have gone to jail except they were on probation.

Bottom line, there's no political will to put these people in jail. Sure, we all want to see Noriega behind bars, but the guy growing a half a dozen plants in his basement for his own use looks like a victim, not a criminal.


That's why I say the war on drugs is a phony war. One thing though, it keeps the money flowing on both sides of the battle. I'm not pro-legalization (mostly because I know who would foot the bill for rehabilitating all of those "poor addicts," ME), but you have to admit, the money is pretty good no matter which side you choose.


You can keep your no-knocks. Yes, when you're confronting exceptional bad guys, I fully support it. But I don't see them netting any really hard-core criminals.

And in the end, you have to ask:

IS IT WORTH IT?

I see little evidence that it is. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(And CassidyGT has a good point too).

[JimR]

Jack99:

No, it's not worth it (the Holy War on Drugs TM).

And, while I would end up footing the bill for rehab for addicts after legalization, it would be a damn sight cheaper than paying for the Holy War on Drugs TM. In both dollars and loss of rights.

JimR

[mrat]

I still don't understand where are these no knock warrants are coming from. Like I said earlier, I have yet to be involved in a no knock warrant in my 10 years as an LEO. I guess here in California the rules to get a no knock are stricter. In Cali we have to have a solid safety reason to get a no knock. It is not good enough to say they are a drug dealer or they have guns. Something that no one has mentioned is the danger to LEOs when they serve no knock notices, very dangerous. Also, when we get a tip from the public that someone is dealing we do not go get a search warrant a serve it on the basis of a tip. We do surveilance, send in undercover officers, etc. Once we have enough info, then we get a warrant. If we tried to get a warrant without any info except a tip, the judge would tell us to get lost.

Jack99,
LEOs do not need no knock notices to get an adrenaline rush. LEOs regulary do things that cause an adrenaline rush. I get an adrenaline rush serving all warrants.

[Kathryn]

Denver specialized in no knocks as part of their war on drugs, clean up the neighborhoods, campaign. I agree that they are unconstitutional. With some creativity, LEOs can apprehend the BGs in a constitutional manner.

Just read that the City offered the Mena
family 150K for wrongful death. Pathetic.

[M19]

Back in the old days, we didn't use a scumbag
informants word to kick a door on a narco case, but perfered to used it to further our investigation and strengthen our case. In a life threatening situation that's a different
case. It seems that some police today are wannabe military commandos. Of cource now without the Military Draft, this is their only chance. There is suppose a big difference in the mind set and I wonder if they realize it.

[jeffelkins]

If called as a juror in a drug no-knock, my initial preference would be to use jury nullification to free the victim.

There's no-place for no-knock in America, unless it's to save the life of a hostage.

[mrat]

Jeffelkins,
Unless I read your post wrong, it sounds like you are calling the BGs victims if a no knock was used. That sounds just a tad extreme to me. If it is truly a BG don't you think they should be convicted regardless of whether a no knock was used.

[beemerb]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this thread.A inocent man was killed on a no knock.Justified in that a pointed a gun at people that broke his door down.He was defending his home and was killed for it.To me that is murder.A no knock is not legal and I could care less what kind of bull is used to justify it.Murder is murder.
Bob

[C.R.Sam]

I have worked with Peace Officers, Law Enforcement Officers and Cops. Many are dedicated to Protecting and Serving: but far too many seem to have a Rambo mentality and think that their badge is a license to exercise their power over " mere " citizens.&lt;p&gt;
If a no knock warrent results in entry into the wrong address, then that warrent was too easy to obtain. It does happen in Kalifornia, as in other states and innocent people become instant criminals, dead ones. Murder legitimized by badge.&lt;p&gt;

If a " LEO " wants the thrill of danger, let him/her moonlight as a clerk on the graveyard shift at the local quickie mart. Far more dangerous with a heck of a lot less pay and benefeits.&lt;p?

Sam

[jimpeel]

In Compton, CA the La Puente cops drive over forty miles to kick in the door of the wrong house based on a bad guy having used the address as a mail drop. They shoot to death a 65-year-old grandfather of fourteen named Paz which means "peace".

In New York the cops raid the wrong house scaring the life -- literally -- out of a 70+ year-old minister.

In Irvine, CA the cops raid a house on an informant's lie. The owner, getting up to see what the ruckus is about is permanently blinded by a flash-bang grenade and shot.

Los Angeles sheriffs deputies raid the Trail's End Ranch in Malibu, CA for alleged marijuana growing netting nothing but the death of the owner, Donald Scott, as he was complying with the demands of the police to put down a .357 revolver he was holding.

No-knocks are evil and only exist because of the drug war. The police got the courts to go along with this idiocy because they told them that if they didn't get in and get the bad guys immediately the bad guys would have time to flush the evidence down the toilet. I suppose that's what donald Scott was going to do with all those phantom acres of marijuana.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited March 18, 2000).]

[Ed Brunner]

If it is truly a BG don't you think they should be convicted regardless of whether a no knock was used.

Short answer: No!

Long answer: HELL NO!

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

[mrat]

I have tried to be rationale on this subject but it hasn't worked. So my last comment is become an LEO and show us how it is done, because we obviously don't know what we are doing.

[Ed Brunner]

I don't knock you or your profession. I am saying that in order for evidence to be used against ANY accused person it musy have been legally obtained. Is this not correct?


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed

[foxfire]

It has been said before; but it bears repeating:
The rights of the many are being violated for the sake of catching a few BGs.
Not to mention that the BGs are now not the only ones we have to fear as each of us try to live in the relative safety(?) of our homes.
Now I'm beginning to understand why many fellow TFLers go armed in their own castle with a firearm strategically placed in every room.
This is something I'm having to reconsider, because these 'incidents' are now happening more often. And they certainly aren't restricted to just the 'big city'.
What other choice is there...?

------------------
...defend the 2nd., it protects us all.
No fate but what we make...

[Jeff Thomas]

"The war on drugs is a big joke, and it's full of hypocrisy," said Craig Silverman, a former Denver prosecutor who opposed Ritter in the last election and is now a defense attorney. "I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but when you have that violent intrusion on people's homes with so little results, you have to ask why."

LawDog, mrat and other LEO's, perhaps you should take a breath as well. I understand that your natural tendency is to see any discussion of no-knocks as an attack on LEO's. But, please, try for a moment to drop your natural defensive reaction.

As citizens, we have to look at this from a 'package' standpoint. You are, whether you like it or not, part of a system. You can do your job 'by the book', and with great professionalism and courage. But, that does us all little good if that job should not have been done in the first place.

You should have a great personal interest in the truth of this debate. Isn't the travesty of a fellow LEO's death or injury made that much worse if the results are so meager?

Again, I just don't see the logic of killing and injuring LEO's, citizens and innocent bystanders so we can bust someone for having such a small amount of drugs and other 'contraband' that they could flush it all down the toilet (as one example). And then, to have such a meager result in court as well?

IMHO, this situation is not only morally wrong, it appears to be foolish policy. I fail to see how that critique can be seen as anti-LEO by our good friends on this forum.

Take care out there guys. Please, don't endanger yourselves for this kind of foolishness.

Regards from AZ

[beemerb]

Points;
1-Become a leo and see what it about,Put yourself in a persons shoes who gets his door broken down in the middle of the night by black clad masked people.What would you do in that case.
2-Source AZ republic.1999 186 leos died.83 died by gunfire.Percentages very low by allmost any occupational standards.The last source I read was police was about 23rd percentage wise in deaths.
3-You are not the last bastion of defence between citizens and chaos as you are taught in police acadamy.
Bob