Cops are such hereos

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

- How much time elapsed between knock, announce and then the kick?

You only need to watch the myriad COPS shows to see how long that REALLY is...

and for a 92 year old woman... who probably does not have good hearing...but lives in a bad neighborhood...... interesting she was sitting there with her gun now isnt it...tell you a lot.. I wonder if these cops are high fiving each other after this .

I had a teacher call COPS the 4th Amendment violation showcase.

I'm sure they care not about this, juts have turkey and talk about how old, senile people are nuts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

How many of the botched skydives involve the egregious action of someone other than the skydiver? You got it?

I can think of two separate fatalities that both involved significant (jump plane) pilot error, by the same pilot. I was on the load and witness to the pilot error on one of these occasions.

Most are not the deeds of another, but most police shootings are the doing of another person, justified or not.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Wow... this takes post whoring to a whole new level

What is this good faith exception? Is that basically if the officers believe what they did was reasonable and neccesary and the courts agree then its OK?

It's a rule that was born in the SCOTUS I believe. It usually has to do with admissibility of evidence, bit can be used as a blanket for all kinds of police misconduct.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, can you confirm where your from please. Might help clear some legal confusions I'm having

Why does it matter? The legal citations have been federal. Here's your info:

Real Name: No name entered.
Occupation: Waste management ;)
Email: No email entered.
Jump Profile
Home DZ: No home dropzone entered.


Waste management; shows your view of the public.... kind of supports what a lot of people say/think about cops.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They were justified. Someone shot at them...they shoot back (no brainer!). Of course they should apologize, they fucked up and someone died. They fucked up, like has been pointed out, before they ever arrived, but someone died and three cops got shot. Looks like the war on drugs has produced more collateral damage.

I don't know if it was them or the elderly lady who fucked up, but I still agree with your post.

Unless it was someone you loved.

If someone was shooting at one of my loved ones, I'd expect them to return fire...and vice versa. The fuck-ups in this case happened before a trigger was ever pulled.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html

Here's a citation of the case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES v. BANKS
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

No. 02—473. Argued October 15, 2003–Decided December 2, 2003

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

When federal and local law enforcement officers went to respondent Banks’s apartment to execute a warrant to search for cocaine, they called out “police search warrant” and rapped on the front door hard enough to be heard by officers at the back door, waited for 15 to 20 seconds with no response, and then broke open the door. Banks was in the shower and testified that he heard nothing until the crash of the door. The District Court denied his motion to suppress the drugs and weapons found during the search, rejecting his argument that the officers waited an unreasonably short time before forcing entry in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109. Banks pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to challenge the search on appeal. In reversing and ordering the evidence suppressed, the Ninth Circuit found, using a four-part scheme for vetting knock-and-announce entries, that the instant entry had no exigent circumstances, making forced entry by destruction of property permissible only if there was an explicit refusal of admittance or a time lapse greater than the one here.

Held:

1. The officers’ 15-to-20-second wait before forcible entry satisfied the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 4—11.

(a) The standards bearing on whether officers can legitimately enter after knocking are the same as those for requiring or dispensing with knock and announce altogether. This Court has fleshed out the notion of reasonable execution on a case-by-case basis, but has pointed out factual considerations of unusual, albeit not dispositive, significance. The obligation to knock and announce before entering gives way when officers have reasonable grounds to expect futility or to suspect that an exigency, such as evidence destruction, will arise instantly upon knocking. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394. Since most people keep their doors locked, a no-knock entry will normally do some damage, a fact too common to require a heightened justification when a reasonable suspicion of exigency already justifies an unwarned entry. United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 70—71. Pp. 4—6.

(b) This case turns on the exigency revealed by the circumstances known to the officers after they knocked and announced, which the Government contends was the risk of losing easily disposable evidence. After 15 to 20 seconds without a response, officers could fairly have suspected that Banks would flush away the cocaine if they remained reticent. Each of Banks’s counterarguments–that he was in the shower and did not hear the officers, and that it might have taken him longer than 20 seconds to reach the door–rests on a mistake about the relevant enquiry. As to the first argument, the facts known to the police are what count in judging a reasonable waiting time, and there is no indication that they knew that Banks was in the shower and thus unaware of an impending search. As to the second, the crucial fact is not the time it would take Banks to reach the door but the time it would take him to destroy the cocaine. It is not unreasonable to think that someone could get in a position to destroy the drugs within 15 to 20 seconds. Once the exigency had matured, the officers were not bound to learn anything more or wait any longer before entering, even though the entry entailed some harm to the building. Pp. 6—9.

(c) This Court’s emphasis on totality analysis leads it to reject the Government’s position that the need to damage property should not be part of the analysis of whether the entry itself was reasonable and to disapprove of the Ninth Circuit’s four-part vetting scheme. Pp. 10—11.

2. The entry here also satisfied 18 U.S.C. § 3109 which permits entry by force “if, after notice of his authority and purpose, [an officer] is refused admittance.” Because §3109 implicates the exceptions to the common law knock-and-announce requirement that inform the Fourth Amendment itself, §3109 is also subject to an exigent circumstances exception, which qualifies the requirement of refusal after notice, just as it qualifies the obligation to announce in the first place. Pp. 11—12.

282 F.3d 699, reversed.

[Lucky... 0]

Looks like it was recently countered:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/16/MNGKKJFD5U1.DTL

In a 5-4 ruling, with new Justice Samuel Alito casting a crucial vote, the court said police intrusions on residential privacy are adequately restrained by several factors -- including "the increasing professionalism of police forces'' -- without suppressing evidence that is obtained with a search warrant.

Congrats, all you supposed people for constitutional rights, your guys appointed the swing vote here - nice work.

Police who enter a home illegally without knocking and find incriminating evidence can use it in a trial, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Thursday, carving an important exception in the 45-year-old rule that keeps unlawfully seized evidence out of court.

See, kids, this is why I switched parties, the Republican Party is for the suppression of the protections of the US Const.

This is what the other side said:

"The court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution's knock-and-announce requirement,'' said Justice Stephen Breyer. "Officers will always know ... that they can ignore the knock-and-announce requirement without risking the suppression of evidence discovered after their unlawful entry.''

Nice job repub voters:

The case reflected the importance of President Bush's appointment of Alito to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in January. No ruling was issued before she left, and with the court evidently deadlocked 4-4, the case was reargued after Alito was seated.

Previous ruling:

Past rulings have required police to wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before entering, allowing immediate entry only when officers have reason to fear that announcing their presence or waiting would lead to violence or the destruction of evidence.

So are we so pround of our country?

Mapp V Ohio, read it:

He also said a portion of the ruling signed by Scalia and three other justices, one short of a majority, "calls into question the legitimacy of Mapp,'' the historic 1961 ruling that barred evidence seized in searches that violate constitutional standards.

More BS about due process:

Scalia said much has changed since 1961, including the availability of new types of civil damage suits and increasing evidence that "police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously,'' reducing the need to suppress evidence.

But Moran said civil suits are meaningless -- most are dismissed because of government immunity, and no one has gotten more than $1 in token damages in the past 30 years, according to his research. And he said improvements in police training were a direct result of the 1961 ruling.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Surprisingly enough people lie to the police all the time and people file false complaints all the time as well. Without it being recorded its word against word.

And if it goes b4 a judge, who does the judge believe? It's NOT word/word.

Last time I testified in court, the issue being argued was my word against an Arkansas state trooper's word. The incident in question wasn't recorded, and the judge believed me....or at least he ruled in our favor.

This particular trooper was lying. But I think it's a small minority of police officers who are "inherently liars." I think most are honest people.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

If it was, and it was by the cops, it will be destroyed.

Not typically, the length of time a recording is kept is up to department policy, but you can look for a department to keep it typically for 60-120 days if it wasn't labeled and indexed as property for a case, in which that tape or electronic recrording is kept for atleast the full length of the court proceedings. Many times those are never destroyed at all.

Quote

Bad boys, bad boys.... oh, I was just watching Cops too. I like that episode, how bout you?

I hate that show, it rarely shows anything in a realistic manner. Its edited and put together in a certain way for a reason. Then again, when has anything on TV been realistic, including "reality" TV? When I have watched it I've wondered if some of the officer's weren't fired and sued.

Quote

And if it goes b4 a judge, who does the judge believe? It's NOT word/word.

Yup, many of the judges out there tend to lean towards the civilian and want the police officer to show proof. They'll take the civilian at their word. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Quote

According to a teacher who was also a cop, he said they were.

And he was your friend's uncle's cousin's friend's brother's great grandfather, right? Whatever.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lindsey 0]

In the hearing that I was involved in, the officer said that he had recorded the incident. Knowing that the recording would show that my friend (whom I was testifying for) was in the right, we were glad there was a tape. But then all the sudden the tape couldn't be found....which is why I testified. I had witnessed the event. But like you said, the judge went with my version of the story and said that the trooper should have produced a recording if he wanted to be believed. I agree with that.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[AggieDave 6]

Well then, that trooper messed up and didn't prepare for the case. His screwup is your friend's gain.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Well then, that trooper messed up and didn't prepare for the case. His screwup is your friend's gain.

Actually, I think his preparation for the case was *losing* the tape. That was really the best thing he could do for his case.... He was not an honest person, I don't believe. I also don't believe he is the norm. I applaud you guys for what you do.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Surprisingly enough people lie to the police all the time and people file false complaints all the time as well. Without it being recorded its word against word.

And if it goes b4 a judge, who does the judge believe? It's NOT word/word.

Last time I testified in court, the issue being argued was my word against an Arkansas state trooper's word. The incident in question wasn't recorded, and the judge believed me....or at least he ruled in our favor.

This particular trooper was lying. But I think it's a small minority of police officers who are "inherently liars." I think most are honest people.

linz

Females fare better in court than males do, but here cops are king to lower court judges.

[TheAnvil 0]

Just like your opinions on the budget, intellect of military members, and etc...unjustified and indefensible.

I see...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I believe, I'd be 'prepared' to shoot till I found-out for sure whether or not they are in fact, police officers. Are you willing to take the chance that it's NOT a police officer and just shoot?


Chuck

Unfortuantley we would have to put that on your headstone: He waited to ensure it wasn;t the cops until it became painfully obvious it was home invaders. RIP.

___________________________________________




Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Once again...


Chuck

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Surprisingly enough people lie to the police all the time and people file false complaints all the time as well. Without it being recorded its word against word.

And if it goes b4 a judge, who does the judge believe? It's NOT word/word.

Last time I testified in court, the issue being argued was my word against an Arkansas state trooper's word. The incident in question wasn't recorded, and the judge believed me....or at least he ruled in our favor.

This particular trooper was lying. But I think it's a small minority of police officers who are "inherently liars." I think most are honest people.

linz

Females fare better in court than males do, but here cops are king to lower court judges.

I think that it had nothing at all to do with my being female. For you to suggest that says more about your bias than the judge's, imho. While I believe that most police officers are honest, my belief that judges aren't so easily swayed by gender bias is even stronger. She (the judge) MIGHT have given some credence to my level of education and my reputation as a physician, but I'd bet that my gender was irrelevant.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Gee I hope none of the guys here who are so staunch in their rights to own and bear arms ever tries to defend THEIR home from a bunch of people who are breaking down their door...

Read the article... it was the wrong house...hope it never happens to you.


But in this atmosphere of the government is inherantly right and the rest of us are all against them.. or terrorists....then this is the inevitable outcome of a fascist government.

100% right on.

Funny how the same people who are consevative pro-gunners are the ones denouncing the actions of a startled person who has her door kicked in.

Wrong again - the pro-gunners are saying that the cops did what they were trained to do - respond to fire. It's "the madding crowd" that's trying to say that the cops murdered the woman.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[masterrig 1]

You're right! Just from the news article in the original thread, the cops acted within the 'rules'. The '20-second rule' that was mentioned is used more by the Feds. Knocking on the door, announcing police presence and kicking-in the door, all in rapid succession, can be done... legally. There's a lot of paper-work involved but, it can be done.


Chuck

[mnealtx 0]

I know the 'knock-yell "police"-kick' scenario is legal, but i think it's being used more and more where/when it doesn't need to be.

Used to be, it was for KNOWN (known being UC cops having made a buy) drug dens...now, it seems like it's being used more and more for ANYTHING the cops would get a warrant for.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lindsey 0]

I agree with that. I'm having a hard time understanding how this happened, though. This sweet little 92 year old woman just happens to be sitting there with her pistol in her lap as the police kick the wrong door in? I'm guessing that the neighborhood's bad enough that she feels like she has to keep a loaded gun on her person at all times, even in her own house? She was able to shoot several times, but didn't realize she was shooting at the police? Something just doesn't seem right in this picture.

The police officers did what they had to do once she was shooting at them. It's a very unfortunate situation, and should never have happened. But it's certainly not a case of the police officers being dishonest or liars or murderers or whatever....

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gee I hope none of the guys here who are so staunch in their rights to own and bear arms ever tries to defend THEIR home from a bunch of people who are breaking down their door...

Read the article... it was the wrong house...hope it never happens to you.


But in this atmosphere of the government is inherantly right and the rest of us are all against them.. or terrorists....then this is the inevitable outcome of a fascist government.

100% right on.

Funny how the same people who are consevative pro-gunners are the ones denouncing the actions of a startled person who has her door kicked in.

Wrong again - the pro-gunners are saying that the cops did what they were trained to do - respond to fire. It's "the madding crowd" that's trying to say that the cops murdered the woman.

But you still haven't addressed the issue. Suppose it was your house. Someone, without offering any corroboration, yells that they are police and that if you don't open the door in 20 seconds they're going to kick your door down.

What do you, as a gun owner, do? Just because they say they're police doesn't mean they're not lying and just want to rob you or worse.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Yup, many of the judges out there tend to lean towards the civilian and want the police officer to show proof. They'll take the civilian at their word. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO.

Not disagreeing with you per se, but I can only tell you that hasn't been my personal, professional experience. I've tried a lot of criminal law in court, both as a DA and a defense attorney, and watched a lot of other attorneys' trials and pretrial evidence-suppression hearings, and I can tell you that when it's an officer's word against a civilian's, most judges I've personally seen tend to believe the officer about 90-95% of the time. As for juries, urban jurors are more willing to accept the possibility that a cop is lying on the stand, whereas suburban and rural jurors have a very, very tough time keeping a truly open mind to that possibility.

Having said that - and this really addresses a completely different point - I appreciate that most cops in the field probably get lied to just about every day.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gee I hope none of the guys here who are so staunch in their rights to own and bear arms ever tries to defend THEIR home from a bunch of people who are breaking down their door...

Read the article... it was the wrong house...hope it never happens to you.


But in this atmosphere of the government is inherantly right and the rest of us are all against them.. or terrorists....then this is the inevitable outcome of a fascist government.

100% right on.

Funny how the same people who are consevative pro-gunners are the ones denouncing the actions of a startled person who has her door kicked in.

Wrong again - the pro-gunners are saying that the cops did what they were trained to do - respond to fire. It's "the madding crowd" that's trying to say that the cops murdered the woman.

But you still haven't addressed the issue. Suppose it was your house. Someone, without offering any corroboration, yells that they are police and that if you don't open the door in 20 seconds they're going to kick your door down.

What do you, as a gun owner, do? Just because they say they're police doesn't mean they're not lying and just want to rob you or worse.

I'd probably end up like Granny... but there'd be more yelling back and forth so that I could determine what the situation was.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

But you still haven't addressed the issue. Suppose it was your house. Someone, without offering any corroboration, yells that they are police and that if you don't open the door in 20 seconds they're going to kick your door down.

What do you, as a gun owner, do? Just because they say they're police doesn't mean they're not lying and just want to rob you or worse.

I'd probably end up like Granny... but there'd be more yelling back and forth so that I could determine what the situation was.

So maybe it's not such a great idea to legally sanction the "20 second rule".