Today, CNN reported that two police offers pled guilty in the killing of a 92 year old woman in Atlana. How did this come about, you wonder? Due to yet another one of our liberties that have been taken away... right from unreasonable search and seizure.
From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/26/atlanta.indictments.ap/index.html)
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A police officer and a former officer pleaded guilty Thursday to manslaughter in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid last fall. Another officer still faces charges in the woman's death.
Officer J.R. Smith told the judge Thursday that he regretted what had happened.
"I'm sorry," the 35-year-old said, his voice barely audible. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation, making false statements and perjury, which was based on untrue claims in a warrant.
Former Officer Gregg Junnier, 40, who retired from the Atlanta police force in January, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements. Both men are expected to face more than 10 years in prison.
The charges followed a November 21 "no-knock" drug raid on the home of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her.
How could this have happened? Since when are police officers allowed to enter a home, plains clothes, without knocking and announcing their presence?
Well this lovely scenario was brought to you by none other than the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States. The case, Hudson v Michigan, revolved around whether the evidence the cops had recovered was legal, because it had been found during a no-knock raid.
Let's hear the majority opinion written by our old friend, Justice Scalia.
The common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents anopportunity to open the door is an ancient one. See Wilson
v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931–932 (1995). Since 1917, when Congress passed the Espionage Act, this traditional protection has been part of federal statutory law, see 40Stat. 229, and is currently codified at 18 U. S. C. §3109. We applied that statute in Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301 (1958), and again in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585 (1968). Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment. Tracing itsorigins in our English legal heritage, 514 U. S., at 931–936, we concluded that it was.
We recognized that the new constitutional rule we had announced is not easily applied. Wilson and cases follow-ing it have noted the many situations in which it is not necessary to knock and announce. It is not necessary when "circumstances presen[t] a threat of physical violence," or if there is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given," id., at 936, or if knocking and announcing would be "futile," Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394 (1997). We re-quire only that police "have a reasonable suspicion . . . under the particular circumstances" that one of these grounds for failing to knock and announce exists, and we have acknowledged that "[t]his showing is not high."
The decision lends its weight wholly to the side of the police in prosecuting, and completely throws off the idea of 'innocent before guilty'. Knocking and announcing has two purposes. The first is to give criminals a chance to turn themselves in peacefully. The second is to make sure that they have the right person in the first place!
Now, we see what happens when these incidents are codified into law as 'correct'. What is taken to be a rare instance will, of course, be abused by those who are in a position to do so. This case's decision has helped to cause the tragedy that befell November 21st.
Perhaps this was a case of mistaken identity though? Surely, the cops had rock solid evidence, and this woman was just in the wrong area?
Hard to believe this story, since the 'informant' that the police cite DENIES that he ever bought drugs there. And of course no drugs were found in the house.
To bring this all home, let's imagine it. A grandmother was shot 5 to 6 times by four armed men, wearing normal clothes, after they busted into her house. Why? Because they were afraid that someone might flush drugs down the toilet. Is it really worth it?
No-knock raids are a travesty of justice, and a direct assault on the 4th Amendment, which guarantees:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Could they have done anything more wrong? I urge you, write today to your Congressman to remove the injustice that no-knock raids cause to the life and liberty of innocent Americans.