Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on February 06, 2014, 02:40:47 PM
-
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-With-Killing-Burleson-County-Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html
Drug dealer gets no knocked, shoots cop, grand jury refuses to charge.
-
In the process of executing that search warrant, Sowders was shot and killed. The Burleson County Sheriff's Office says the search warrant was issued after an informant claimed Magee had stolen guns and illegal drugs inside his mobile home. The informant had been arrested days earlier, but said he had been in Magee's home as recently as the day of his arrest and saw the drugs.
Stolen guns and illegal drugs. Stolen = shytbag, IMO. Drugs, not so worried about.
It sucks that it is (what appears to be) an extreme lowlife in this case, rather than a wrong address no-knock with a dead cop.
Can a Grand Jury have its decision appealed, or Feds get involved and press charges, or some other way to have Government throw infinite resources at this and bully its way to victory? I don't want a reversal of this Grand Jury precedent. I like the idea of cops having to think that Grand Juries may find no-knocks reprehensible invasions of domestic security, and they can be posthumously defamed for committing one and dying in the process.
-
Ooh, interesting!
The court documents say quote, "By Magee's own admission he heard and observed the entry made by the SWAT team."
Deputy Adam Sowders was shot and killed.
He at some point ADMITTED that he knew he was shooting at cops.
Magee's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has said Magee fired shots in an effort to defend himself, his pregnant girlfriend and his property from unknown intruders.
Texas Rangers were called in to collect evidence. Inside Magee's home, they say they found a sophisticated marijuana grow operation and several firearms.
DeGuerin has said all weapons found were legally owned.
Well, no stolen guns. He's not a shytbag. Just a pothead.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wordforge.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2FCurlyBill.jpg&hash=edc553ac5c22757cdd9461060df4d9cfd1566ef9)
-
You know, reading that article I noticed that nowhere did it say that Henry Magee actually shot Adam Sowders? It says that he fired shots, but not that he shot the deputy.
I wonder if it's going to come out that it was one of the SWAT team members actually shot the deputy. It says he was charged with shooting him, but not that he actually did so. ???
-
The court documents say quote, "By Magee's own admission he heard and observed the entry made by the SWAT team."
Shockingly, newspaper doesn't word its news well. Did he hear and observe an entry that happened to be the SWAT team, or did he hear and observe an entry that he knew to be the SWAT team? Either can be implied from the statement.
Stolen guns and illegal drugs. Stolen = shytbag, IMO. Drugs, not so worried about.
It sucks that it is (what appears to be) an extreme lowlife in this case, rather than a wrong address no-knock with a dead cop.
Legal guns and pot.
-
Not to sound cold hearted or whatnot, but if you randomly kick in a door, you SHOULD expect to be taken under fire by the inhabitants. It's generally a better idea to plug the sewer line and knock on the door.
-
Not to sound cold hearted or whatnot, but if you randomly kick in a door, you SHOULD expect to be taken under fire by the inhabitants. It's generally a better idea to plug the sewer line and knock on the door.
You're not going to flush a sophisticated grow operation down the toilet. ;/
-
as it stands seems legitimate result from the grand jury system
it also highlights the risks of lets make a deal law enforcement
hows that work in texas? not familiar with the grand jury system . can they seek to recharge?
-
there is not enough evidence that Mr. Magee knew that day that Peace Officers were entering his home. The events occurred in a matter of seconds amongst chaos.
Isn't that the stated intent of all SWAT raids ???
-
Sounds like the system worked this time. :police:
-
gotta suck that the shooter and the cop he shot families were friends
-
Not to sound cold hearted or whatnot, but if you randomly kick in a door, you SHOULD expect to be taken under fire by the inhabitants. It's generally a better idea to plug the sewer line and knock on the door.
One of the things I like about stand your ground laws. They affirm that, yes, in fact your home is your building, and you're allowed exert control over that space by any means up to and including active combat.
-
I smell a friendly fire accident at the bottom of this that was getting pinned on the pot head. I also smell an informant who did not impress the grand jury. Given the GJ no-bill, I bet I am not alone.
This is a good reason to outlaw no-knocks and perfunctory knock raids.
Deputy Adam Sowders filed for a search warrant, and requested to enter Magee's home without knocking or announcing law enforcement's presence. He gave multiple reasons based on what the informant had told investigators, including the fact that Magee had been overheard saying he wasn't afraid to use his weapons, he may have an aggressive dog, and that Magee could potentially destroy the drugs.
If the informant told you 12-15 plants, how would he manage to destroy the evidence? Could it be that this is a magic formula used to get a judge's signature and justify breaking out the SWAT toys?
This was all so unnecessary. Zero chance of losing the evidence and a very good chance of dude giving up at the doorway to a real knock & service or warrant.
-
He is also not going to flush "illegal" guns down a toilet either.
-
He is also not going to flush "illegal" guns down a toilet either.
re the pot grow? he doesn't have to flush equipment just stash
-
I smell a friendly fire accident at the bottom of this that was getting pinned on the pot head. I also smell an informant who did not impress the grand jury. Given the GJ no-bill, I bet I am not alone.
This is a good reason to outlaw no-knocks and perfunctory knock raids.
If the informant told you 12-15 plants, how would he manage to destroy the evidence? Could it be that this is a magic formula used to get a judge's signature and justify breaking out the SWAT toys?
This was all so unnecessary. Zero chance of losing the evidence and a very good chance of dude giving up at the doorway to a real knock & service or warrant.
i doubt the friendly fire shooter acknowledges firing at cops and so far haven't heard of return fire\
i can get rid of 12 plants in 60 seconds not a guess
it is a lil noisy though
-
Does a MJ grow operation in a mobile home justify application of a no-knock warrant and a SWAT team? ???
-
Any grow operation that can be destroyed in a minute hardly warrants excessive use of force.
It would probably take me longer than 60 seconds to destroy and flush my lone aloe plant let alone a grow operation worth a swat raid.
-
Any grow operation that can be destroyed in a minute hardly warrants excessive use of force.
It would probably take me longer than 60 seconds to destroy and flush my lone aloe plant let alone a grow operation worth a swat raid.
rookie
restaurant garbage disposal if they are in small pots i can grind them too . 5 gall buckets not so much noisy but efficient.
-
rookie
restaurant garbage disposal if they are in small pots i can grind them too . 5 gall buckets not so much noisy but efficient.
That possibility justifies the use of excessive force, a suspension of expected constitutional protections and is definitely worth the life of the police officer then ;/
-
Don't matter what the GJ did or even it he never gets charged with any crime for that incident. I'll be surprised if he lives another year.
-
That possibility justifies the use of excessive force, a suspension of expected constitutional protections and is definitely worth the life of the police officer then ;/
What excessive force was used? And it was a warranted search?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
What excessive force was used? And it was a warranted search?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
Legal and flawless.
Nothing excessive about a half dozen or more men busting down the door of a presumed innocent man in the middle of the night, all geared up like they were on a military raid.
-
Two things...
First, I believe that the prosecutor could present the case again, even to a different grand jury. No double jeopardy or anything along those lines to stop it. Most times, a case that gets no billed is seen as anwaste of time. Somehow, with a dead officer, I don't think it will be seen as a waste of time. Frankly, an indictment wouldn't shock me in the least. Not that hard to get an indictment when the prosecutor controls exactly what the grand jury sees and hears.
Second, I find it interesting that so often I read posts that lambast LEOs for being "geared up oike they were on a kilitary raid." It's a job where you are going into an unknown situation where the people on the other side of the door will very likely be hostile to your presence. They may well be armed, which it appears was known in this case. Regardless of whether it is knock or no-knock, wouldn't you wear that gear if you were knowingly going into that type of situation? I know many regulars here have the plan, and the gear, to suit up in a similar way in a SHTF situation because of the possibility of engaging hostiles(got no problem with that). I wore body armor back when I just tagged along on warrants and waited outside. I carried my Glock with extra mags, and once or twice kept a shotgun real close. It wasn't a cool factor. It was being prepared.
All that said, I don't like no knock warrants either, even less the longer I sit at the bench.
-
Second, I find it interesting that so often I read posts that lambast LEOs for being "geared up oike they were on a kilitary raid." It's a job where you are going into an unknown situation where the people on the other side of the door will very likely be hostile to your presence.
I don't question using the right tools for the job.
I question the underlying presupposition that the no knock raid is the best tactic to catch the bad guy and the goods, esp in all these cases that go sideways.
-
Chris, with modern forensics at the state they are at, no-knocks out of fear that evidence will be destroyed is ridiculous.
If the police are going to serve CSD's pot growing operation and they do so by knocking on the door and announcing themselves, then they hear the garbage disposal whir up, all they have to do is enter forcibly (a warrant grants this privilege if there is no response to an announcement), stop the disposal process, and test the disposal for residue. It'll be there, in spades.
The only justified use of a no-knock is in the case of violent kidnappers or hostage takers, or violent terrorists.
No-knocks for drugs? Blue collar stuff? SBR/AOW/MG/suppressor/AWB stuff? No way. The gun issues aren't illegal in and of themselves... that's essentially tax dodging is all. Blue collar. Non-violent. Drugs? The evidence will be there when you do a perfectly normal authoritarian and duly processed entry. Counterfeiting, money laundering, illegal gambling, prostitution and so on? What serves society better... a john who escapes the raid and continues to pay his income taxes, or a dead john and hooker when the boys in blue get trigger happy?
-
If the police are going to serve CSD's pot growing operation and they do so by knocking on the door and announcing themselves, then they hear the garbage disposal whir up, all they have to do is enter forcibly (a warrant grants this privilege if there is no response to an announcement), stop the disposal process, and test the disposal for residue. It'll be there, in spades.
Or they could just wait until they hear the disposal stop and the door opens, wander around for a couple minutes and go home. Crop is destroyed, grower is out his investment, and nobody's hurt. Lather rinse repeat just often enough that he's never able to turn a profit, and you stop the problem safely.
-
Or they could just wait until they hear the disposal stop and the door opens, wander around for a couple minutes and go home. Crop is destroyed, grower is out his investment, and nobody's hurt. Lather rinse repeat just often enough that he's never able to turn a profit, and you stop the problem safely.
Sorta like the policeman who camps out conspicuously in a school zone. Folk slow the heck down, the desired outcome.
-
Okay guys, I misunderstood. I thought the knock (pun intended) was on the gear. I agree no knocks are bad legally and in some ways tactically. Carryon.
-
Or they could just wait until they hear the disposal stop and the door opens, wander around for a couple minutes and go home. Crop is destroyed, grower is out his investment, and nobody's hurt. Lather rinse repeat just often enough that he's never able to turn a profit, and you stop the problem safely.
Its not about "stopping the problem" anymore. It is now about all the assets that can be stolen seized via the doctrine of angels dancing on the head of a pin guilty property.
Not to sound cold hearted or whatnot, but if you randomly kick in a door, you SHOULD expect to be taken under fire by the inhabitants. It's generally a better idea to plug the sewer line and knock on the door
Truth. And something that SHOULD be taught to all aspiring keepers of the peace.
-
re the pot grow? he doesn't have to flush equipment just stash
In this case the 'stash' would be ~12 pot plants of indeterminate age. Unless they're seedlings you're talking about trying to dispose of a dozen small bushes.
If they're fully mature I question the ability to stuff them down even a professional restaurant grade disposal.
-
wait for it
wait for it
Detcord will take care of 12 bushes in under 60 sec.
=D =D
-
That reminds me of the movie Conspiracy Theory where Mel Gibson's character had his apartment wired to blow.
-
rookie
restaurant garbage disposal if they are in small pots i can grind them too . 5 gall buckets not so much noisy but efficient.
Short of exotics like anhydrous HF or fluorium hexafluorostibanuide (10 quadrillion times stronger than 100% sulfuric acid), most off the shelf solvents will not destroy the evidence before it can be recovered. Plus, it's an additional charge you can hit the pot grower with. Destruction of evidence. If your pot grower DOES have H2FSbF6 or whatnot laying around, pot growing is the least of your concerns.
-
Short of exotics like anhydrous HF or fluorium hexafluorostibanuide (10 quadrillion times stronger than 100% sulfuric acid), most off the shelf solvents will not destroy the evidence before it can be recovered. Plus, it's an additional charge you can hit the pot grower with. Destruction of evidence. If your pot grower DOES have H2FSbF6 or whatnot laying around, pot growing is the least of your concerns.
If he's playing with that, what are the odds that he'll survive the first attempt to destroy the evidence, even without anybody bothering to enter?
-
Its not about "stopping the problem" anymore. It is now about all the assets that can be stolen seized via the doctrine of angels dancing on the head of a pin guilty property.
Truth. And something that SHOULD be taught to all aspiring keepers of the peace.
This. The war on drugs has become extremely profitable for those waging it. They have a vested interest in continuing the war indefinitely. IMO police should have the same goal that doctors should have: the elimination of the need for their presence.
-
This. The war on drugs has become extremely profitable for those waging it. They have a vested interest in continuing the war indefinitely. IMO police should have the same goal that doctors should have: the elimination of the need for their presence.
If the police get more like doctors then they will want an annual search of everyone's house :mad:
-
To me, "due process" means presentation of a valid warrant, and if a valid warrant is presented, as I see it the person served is obliged to honor it and peacefully comply with it.
If I were ever to serve on a grand jury, I would find it very difficult to indict a person for opening fire on anyone who violently forced entry before presentation of a valid warrant.
-
To me, "due process" means presentation of a valid warrant, and if a valid warrant is presented, as I see it the person served is obliged to honor it and peacefully comply with it.
If I were ever to serve on a grand jury, I would find it very difficult to indict a person for opening fire on anyone who violently forced entry before presentation of a valid warrant.
@Hank...what would you have the police do if they are standing on the front porch, can see and hear someone moving around inside, and no one answers the door? Of if upon seeing the officer holding up the warrant, Mr. Homeowner slams and bars the door? Truly not looking for a fight, but I am truly curious as to how APS sees a chain of events occuring, from the perfect scenario you describe through forcible entry...
-
@Hank...what would you have the police do if they are standing on the front porch, can see and hear someone moving around inside, and no one answers the door? Of if upon seeing the officer holding up the warrant, Mr. Homeowner slams and bars the door? Truly not looking for a fight, but I am truly curious as to how APS sees a chain of events occuring, from the perfect scenario you describe through forcible entry...
I'm trying to figure out how we ever got to such violence for a non-violent and victimless crime ??? :facepalm:
Sometimes when you are doing the wrong thing, stopping would be better than doing it harder ;/
-
Tallpine, I'm not just talking drug crimes, but in general when trying to serve a search or arrwst warrant. I often turn to you all for a sense of what "reasonable men/women" think on legal issues. I find it helpful in my job...
-
And wasn't there supposed to be stolen firearms listed on this warrant? Not quite victimless
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Tallpine, I'm not just talking drug crimes, but in general when trying to serve a search or arrwst warrant. I often turn to you all for a sense of what "reasonable men/women" think on legal issues. I find it helpful in my job...
Well, not making the situation worse ought to be the first rule.
Now, if it's pretty certain the guy is a serial killer likely to kill again real soon, prudence dictates nailing the guy as quickly as possible using whatever means necessary. Otherwise, breaking down doors and shooting dogs is really just cool toys drama instead of picking them up the next time they run a stop sign, etc.
I have some respect for the sheriff of the neighboring county. A few years back there was a family shooting in our neighborhood (adult brother shoots/wounds adult sister). Neither were stellar citizens. I heard that our own county mounties wanted to go all rambeaux but he said just let him go home and go to sleep and pick him up in the morning - which they did without incident.
-
And wasn't there supposed to be stolen firearms listed on this warrant? Not quite victimless
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
"supposed to be" ;/
-
Tallpine, I'm not just talking drug crimes, but in general when trying to serve a search or arrwst warrant. I often turn to you all for a sense of what "reasonable men/women" think on legal issues. I find it helpful in my job...
As the resident APS Anarchist and vitriol-spewer when it comes to cops in general and no-knocks in particular, I think this is obvious: I'm giving you more ground than Tallpine is.
Knock, announce, and wait a RESPECTFUL interval for a response as befits the hour. Serving a warrant at 3AM means you wait up to 5 minutes for someone to put clothes on and stagger to the door. Serving that same warrant at 7PM means you repeat your announcement every 15 seconds or so, until a reasonable period has passed (the only person home could be in the bathroom) or you get obvious, blatant evidence of evidence destruction or attempts to flee apprehension.
Deliberate attempt to avoid the warrant? Bust down the door.
But if anyone deliberately attempts to enter my home without announcing they have a warrant, that's why I am armed. I absolutely will not yield that point, ever. If society wants to compel me to yield sovereignty of my home to another party, they have to do so by force or by due process. Due process involves that warrant being served IN A CIVIL MANNER. Cops who serve no-knocks are on the same field as thugs when it comes to force, and deserve the same end.
-
@Hank...what would you have the police do if they are standing on the front porch, can see and hear someone moving around inside, and no one answers the door? Of if upon seeing the officer holding up the warrant, Mr. Homeowner slams and bars the door? Truly not looking for a fight, but I am truly curious as to how APS sees a chain of events occuring, from the perfect scenario you describe through forcible entry...
Bullhorn(s), to announce presence. High-candlepower/lumen lights to flood the house to get their attention.
As AZ said give them (via announcement) an appropriate amount of time to open the door given the hour.
It's like everyone learned the wrong lessons from Ruby Ridge. They could have bagged Koresh any number of times he drove into town for this/that and the other thing. Even the local law enforcement made the offer to the BATFEIO that they would pick him up and hold him for them to question. No can do. BATFEIO needed moar $$$ for cool SWAT toys and to show DC that bad, evil guns are out there with bad, evil people and they must be stopped and the only way we can do that is with MOAR. So instead of everyone saying "We need to find less dramatic ways to put the habeas grabus on those bad actors that don't get a bunch of other folks dead." Everyone went full retard and started their own inhouse A-Team/Delta Force, with every mall operator tactical ninja gizmo and gadget the give the exploding pants edge.
Where's Andy Griffith when we really need him?
-
Keepin' the Negroes out of Mayberry.
-
@Hank...what would you have the police do if they are standing on the front porch, can see and hear someone moving around inside, and no one answers the door? Of if upon seeing the officer holding up the warrant, Mr. Homeowner slams and bars the door? Truly not looking for a fight, but I am truly curious as to how APS sees a chain of events occuring, from the perfect scenario you describe through forcible entry...
He said "present" a warrant. He didn't say that the occupant had to read it. If they have the warrant, and knock and wait a reasonable interval, then they would seem to have presented it.
-
It's like everyone learned the wrong lessons from Ruby Ridge. They could have bagged Koresh any number of times ....
I think you mean "Waco" ;)
Your point is just as valid regarding RR. The cops didn't want an arrest - they wanted a slaughter.
-
@Hank...what would you have the police do if they are standing on the front porch, can see and hear someone moving around inside, and no one answers the door? Of if upon seeing the officer holding up the warrant, Mr. Homeowner slams and bars the door? Truly not looking for a fight, but I am truly curious as to how APS sees a chain of events occuring, from the perfect scenario you describe through forcible entry...
Chris, I would expect the police to knock and LOUDLY announce and wait some reasonable time before forcing entry - not "Policewarrantcrashbangboom!" in the space of a few seconds. (And from what I've read, the "policewarrant" shout sometimes does not precede the "crashbangboom" of the forcible entry.)
And in your second scenario, the police DID hold up the warrant and the homeowner DID see it- in which case, as I stated, the homeowner is, in my opinion, obliged to peacefully comply; slamming and barring the door is not compliance with the valid warrant that was presented, and forcible entry is then justified.
AZR and Scout seem to understand this.
I remember many years ago the police in Chicago were serving a warrant, with a TV crew in tow; between the announcement and the sledgehammers hitting the door, no more than a few seconds elapsed. (This was before battering rams.) The door? They didn't get through it - it was HEAVILY reinforced. After a bit, a little window (like a speakeasy in an old gangster movie opened) and a gentleman peered out, asking what they were doing; the police demanded entry, which was refused UNTIL they found the warrant and held it up to the door so the fellow could read it, whereupon the door was opened.
No contraband was found.
-
I remember many years ago the police in Chicago were serving a warrant, with a TV crew in tow; between the announcement and the sledgehammers hitting the door, no more than a few seconds elapsed. (This was before battering rams.) The door? They didn't get through it - it was HEAVILY reinforced. After a bit, a little window (like a speakeasy in an old gangster movie opened) and a gentleman peered out, asking what they were doing; the police demanded entry, which was refused UNTIL they found the warrant and held it up to the door so the fellow could read it, whereupon the door was opened.
No contraband was found.
The thing I think of is that while it varies by drug, generally speaking a dealer is going to have too much product to dispose of without extended work. And individual might be about to 'flush' his stash, but unless you happen to catch a dealer on a low stock day, they aren't going to be able to flush it. Of course, generally only dealers are interested in security enough to obtain reinforced doors...
Personally, I'd like to see drugs legalized so that the only 'no-knock' raids are reserved for things like kidnapping, slavery, and terrorism. Even then, things like denying them supplies - picking them up one by one as they go on grocery runs, denying them supplies and utilities generally works out peacefully.
-
I thought we solved the "flushing the stash" issue with the mandatory low flow toilets? ??? I can't imagine anything more than a dime bag actually making it down in one go.
In seriousness, Like many folks on here (and in real life) I don't give a damn about pot growers, distributors, and users. I would much prefer my Law Enforcement to limit kinetic entries to (like deadly force) instances where there is imminent danger of death or serious injury.
-
I thought we solved the "flushing the stash" issue with the mandatory low flow toilets? ??? I can't imagine anything more than a dime bag actually making it down in one go.
That's where getting a toilet with a high MaP (http://www.map-testing.com/maximum-performance/) score would come in. My 'low flow' toilet that I bought ~3 years ago flushes far better than the old high flow one in the other bathroom. Mine is rated in the ~900s, or over 30 ounces of soybean paste and TP. Can't say for drugs, but I figure you can dump in enough to just bury the trap and be just fine.
As a bonus, less water per flush means you can flush faster.
In seriousness, Like many folks on here (and in real life) I don't give a damn about pot growers, distributors, and users. I would much prefer my Law Enforcement to limit kinetic entries to (like deadly force) instances where there is imminent danger of death or serious injury.
Yep. The above is my 'problem solving' nature treating the exercise as a puzzle. Another option up north might be a high-efficiency wood furnace you keep hot.
-
Not to sound cold hearted or whatnot, but if you randomly kick in a door, you SHOULD expect to be taken under fire by the inhabitants. It's generally a better idea to plug the sewer line and knock on the door.
^^^ This. No knock warrants should not be allowed for anything other than the apprehension of known-violent felons. And the difference between a no-knock entry and a knock-three-times-and whisper-"POLICE!"-as-fast-as-you-can entry is so technical as to be no difference at all. Both totally miss the point of having a warrant, which is to have a piece of paper to show the property owner or occupant that says, "Let these officers into your premises."
"It need not have happened. They could have walked up to his house in the daylight and he would have let him in or they could have stopped him as he left his house to go to the store," said DeGuerin.
Quoted for [obvious] truth.
The District Attorney's office released a statement saying,
"The Burleson County Sheriff's Office would not have been there that day if Mr. Magee had not decided to live a lifestyle of doing and producing illegal drugs in his home. Therefore, we will fully prosecute the drug charges against him."
They also would not have been there that night if they hadn't decided it's more fun to roust people when they're asleep rather than to act like civilized representatives of a civilized legal system.
Burleson County District Attorney Julie Renken wouldn't say if she'll present the case again to a different grand jury.
If the prosecutor is allowed to keep shopping for a cooperative jury, that's just plan wrong. There should be only one "bite of the apple."
-
They also would not have been there that night if they hadn't decided it's more fun to roust people when they're asleep rather than to act like civilized representatives of a civilized legal system.
That said that they're going to press charges against him for the drugs they found; not for the 'murder' of the police officer. While I disagree with the WoD, I certainly acknowledge that it exists and the dude violated them. Acceptable.
What isn't acceptable is the prosecutor continuing to shop for a jury that will vote her way.
-
I have to go with the seeming majority here.
Knock, announce, wait a reasonable time, produce warrant. Bust down door only with a good reason. The whole no knock thing is getting, and has been for awhile, asinine.
Sent via tapatalk
-
I have to go with the seeming majority here.
Knock, announce, wait a reasonable time, produce warrant. Bust down door only with a good reason. The whole no knock thing is getting, and has been for awhile, asinine.
Sent via tapatalk
Suspected drugs are never a good reason.
-
Outside of hostage situations and possibly when there is reliable intel (ie not some guy you just arrested trying to narc some time off) that there will be armed resistance to an arrest warrant, no knocks are never justified.
-
I thought we solved the "flushing the stash" issue with the mandatory low flow toilets?
I installed one a month ago in my house that has something like "Will flush a bucket of golf balls in one flush" printed on the box.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaWDH16SqVs
Still not an excuse for a no-knock warrant.
-
I installed one a month ago in my house that has something like "Will flush a bucket of golf balls in one flush" printed on the box.
That must have hurt :O
-
That said that they're going to press charges against him for the drugs they found; not for the 'murder' of the police officer. While I disagree with the WoD, I certainly acknowledge that it exists and the dude violated them. Acceptable.
What isn't acceptable is the prosecutor continuing to shop for a jury that will vote her way.
Not sure how you limit grand jury attempts. They aren't a trial so double jeapardy doesn't apply. Without the grand jury filter, the prosecutor would have already done it though.
-
Not sure how you limit grand jury attempts. They aren't a trial so double jeapardy doesn't apply. Without the grand jury filter, the prosecutor would have already done it though.
Make jeopardy attach when presenting to a grand jury. Done.
-
Make jeopardy attach when presenting to a grand jury. Done.
direct indictment
-
direct indictment
I can't claim to be an expert, but isn't the entire point of states that have grand jury systems to prevent the use of those? I thought it was either/or not both/and. But I admit I don't know.
-
I can't claim to be an expert, but isn't the entire point of states that have grand jury systems to prevent the use of those? I thought it was either/or not both/and. But I admit I don't know.
not sure either i know in some states at least there is both
-
not sure either i know in some states at least there is both
Florida, for example, but we've already seen what happens when you bypass the grand jury there.
-
Not sure how you limit grand jury attempts. They aren't a trial so double jeapardy doesn't apply. Without the grand jury filter, the prosecutor would have already done it though.
After the first GJ hearing, the second should have a simple choice; indict the accused for the stated crime or the prosecutor for harassment.
-
After the first GJ hearing, the second should have a simple choice; indict the accused for the stated crime or the prosecutor for harassment.
Why should those be exclusive choices?
The Texans here can correct me but it is my understanding that in a killing Texas law requires a GJ. I don't know about other crimes but didn't the AG in Texas have to go through 5-6 grand juries to get an indictment on Tom Delay?
-
The Texans here can correct me but it is my understanding that in a killing Texas law requires a GJ.
Only one.
I don't know about other crimes but didn't the AG in Texas have to go through 5-6 grand juries to get an indictment on Tom Delay?
Nothing's perfect, but I'd rather err on the side of failing to indict a guilty man than destroying an innocent one with the cost and stigma of a drawn out trial.
-
The concept of the grand jury is to have the decision as to whether or not charges are filed in the hands of "the people" and not an individual. Ideally, it takes the power out of the prosecutor's hands to prevent abuse of that power. In my experience as someone who presented to grand juries for several years, the problem with the grand jury process these days in much the same as many parts of "the system," which is apathy of the citizens. People don't want to commit their time and effort to being a part of the grand jury. in my jurisdiction, it is a commitment for every Thursday for three months. Some employers won't allow that, Those who do don't want to do any work beyond sitting in the chair, listening, and voting. The vast majority are content to sit back, listen to what the prosecutor presents, and call it done.
on the issue of jeopardy attaching when the grand jury starts, I'd say that is not a good idea. Under the law now, jeopardy doesn't attach until the first witness is sworn in, or the jury is impaneled (depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances). I've presented a couple of cases where there the matter was "no billed." Additional investigation turned up additional evidence, and upon second presentation, an indictment was returned. Don't want to have a case considered legally dead because it was presented too soon, or have later important evidence found and it essentially be useless. Also, in order to enforce such a thing, you would have to remove the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. Otherwise, how would you know if a case had or had not been presented to the grand jury. And, if you remove the secrecy, think about the problems in having grand jury investigations open as public record...A thorough background check would turn up that "John Smith was investigated by the grand jury several times for molesting the neighborhood dogs and cats.' That could be rather damning for Mr. Smith in his efforts to find a job.
-
on the issue of jeopardy attaching when the grand jury starts, I'd say that is not a good idea. Under the law now, jeopardy doesn't attach until the first witness is sworn in, or the jury is impaneled (depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances). I've presented a couple of cases where there the matter was "no billed." Additional investigation turned up additional evidence, and upon second presentation, an indictment was returned. Don't want to have a case considered legally dead because it was presented too soon, or have later important evidence found and it essentially be useless.
Wouldn't that be an incentive for a prosecutor to not present a case based on insufficient evidence in the first place?
Also, in order to enforce such a thing, you would have to remove the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. Otherwise, how would you know if a case had or had not been presented to the grand jury. And, if you remove the secrecy, think about the problems in having grand jury investigations open as public record...A thorough background check would turn up that "John Smith was investigated by the grand jury several times for molesting the neighborhood dogs and cats.' That could be rather damning for Mr. Smith in his efforts to find a job.
I'm kind of confused by this. Prosecutor presents to GJ. GJ returns no bill or true bill. Those results are public record, right? Otherwise how would we be reading this story? ??? Not arguing with you I just don't understand this process.
-
I'm kind of confused by this. Prosecutor presents to GJ. GJ returns no bill or true bill. Those results are public record, right? Otherwise how would we be reading this story? ??? Not arguing with you I just don't understand this process.
No. A no bill is not a public record. Speaking only of Ohio (which is where I practice), the only records from a Grand Jury is the indictments which were handed down. in fact, when a case was No Billed, office policy was for me/the presenting prosecutor to immediately shred all of the documents relating to that presentation to the grand jury...subpoenas, voting ballots, the drafted indictment. If you created a jeopardy situation upon presentation to the Grand Jury, there would have to be some record kept of the No Bills as well, so that you would have records to show that the Grand Jury jeopardy attached. These would undoubtedly become public records, and thus could be reviewed during a background check. As it is now, absent an indictment, there is no record to show that a case was ever investigated or presented about a person. Not sure how the information got out in this case, unless the prosecutor divulged that information, which is a very dangerous thing to do (potential liability issues). The "defendant" could say that as much as he wanted, if he or his attorney was given the information.
-
Very interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.
-
. . . I don't know about other crimes but didn't the AG in Texas have to go through 5-6 grand juries to get an indictment on Tom Delay?
Not certain if the number is correct, but I'm pretty sure it took multiple attempts for the DA to secure an indictment. In fact, there have been a number of cases (particularly in Travis County) where several GJs had to be convened before an indictment was handed down - usually the DA's politics were the driving factor. Some pundits said that with enough time and effort, a DA could indict a ham sandwich in Travis County.
-
Wouldn't that be an incentive for a prosecutor to not present a case based on insufficient evidence in the first place?
Oh, and in some situations, as a prosecutor you need to present a case to the grand jury even if you don't think it is fully prepared. If a person is arrested and jailed, they have a right to have the case presented to the Grand Jury within a set period of time. Other times, you want to put evidence "on record," or "ask" the grand jury to subpoena records to assist the investigation along, which gets the case put on the schedule. And, on occasion, evidence turns up later that no one could have foreseen. I know of a molestation case where the matter was no billed, and several months later, a new victim came forward who was also a witness to what happened with the first victim.
-
Oh, and in some situations, as a prosecutor you need to present a case to the grand jury even if you don't think it is fully prepared. If a person is arrested and jailed, they have a right to have the case presented to the Grand Jury within a set period of time. Other times, you want to put evidence "on record," or "ask" the grand jury to subpoena records to assist the investigation along, which gets the case put on the schedule. And, on occasion, evidence turns up later that no one could have foreseen. I know of a molestation case where the matter was no billed, and several months later, a new victim came forward who was also a witness to what happened with the first victim.
Wait, grand juries can issue subpoenas? I thought all they did was issue a go/no go on indicting for a crime? Never had cause to be involved with the legal system so this is all new information to me.
-
Not certain if the number is correct, but I'm pretty sure it took multiple attempts for the DA to secure an indictment. In fact, there have been a number of cases (particularly in Travis County) where several GJs had to be convened before an indictment was handed down - usually the DA's politics were the driving factor. Some pundits said that with enough time and effort, a DA could indict a ham sandwich in Travis County.
The "ham sandwich" line is famous for all grand juries, but I don't recall the original source. Goes back to what I said about the issues with the system. If a Grand Jury worked as intended, the prosecutor is nothing more than an aid to the jurors. The way it has become, I fear, is that the jurors are now little more than a rubber stamp for the prosecutors. Kind of like voting...the tool only works if the user does his/her part.
-
Wait, grand juries can issue subpoenas? I thought all they did was issue a go/no go on indicting for a crime? Never had cause to be involved with the legal system so this is all new information to me.
The grand jury can direct the prosecutor to issue subpoenas on behalf of their proceedings. Again, in theory, the grand jury runs the process, with the prosecutor being their tool (joke intended) for getting the cases investigated to their satisfaction.
-
Not sure how the information got out in this case
Pretty high profile for a cop to have been shot/killed.
It was national news and I remember reading about it in December.
-
Just spent an hour or so doing arraignments, and a thought occurred to me...
What I've been describing about the grand jury process is the ideal, the theory upon which the system was built. Like many aspects of our government, when it was thought up and written on paper, it was a great idea. As time has passed, and the world has changed, it may seem to be imperfect in its application. As some of you have expressed concern about a prosecutor being able to present a case over and over again trying to seek an indictment. As I thought about it, there are a couple of realities that I want to share that may help explain why I think creating jeopardy for grand jury is frankly unnecessary...
First, I can think of no circumstances where a person would be subject to grand jury proceedings for an extended period of time would be incarcerated, or even subject to bond. Here in Ohio, a person has a right to have a case indicted by the grand jury, or a probable cause hearing conducted by a judge, within 10 days of being arrested. If not complied with, the person must be released. (forgive my lack of citations, it's been too long since I did that work, and I'm between hearings so i don't have time to look up the numbers for you.) In many cases where an accused is subject to grand jury proceedings without being arrested, the person may not even know anything is happening unless or until a summons and indictment are served upon him/her. With these in mind, other than the fact that it may affront out senses of civic morality and justice, there is no real impact on a person being investigated by a grand jury unless/until that indictment is handed down.
Second, in discussing things with Balog, I've been talking about the ideal situation...the grand jury issuing subpoenas, the grand jury calling witnesses. In most/all jurisdictions, i know that this rarely happens, if at all. Kind of goes back to that apathy issue. People don't have the time or the desire to devote themselves full-time for three months or so to serving the grand jury. People work their jobs and live their lives except for that one day or so that they have grand jury duty. and I know it is likely worse in the jurisdictions where grand jury duty is a five-days-a-week commitment for a month or two. The impact of all of this is that the prosecutor does everything, presents the bare minimum to the grand jury (trust me, I know. in many cases, I had jurors outright tell me that they had heard/seen enough and they wanted to vote after a witness or two), and all the jurors do it vote on it. The indictment is based on the facts and truth as filtered by the prosecutor. An honorable prosecutor may present information on both sides of the case, while a prosecutor with a motive will only show the best cards in his hand, so to speak. Now, I don't blame those people who serve on a grand jury for this. I lament the fact that service to our system has become an inconvenience, and people often suffer for doing their duty as a juror. I know of people who were punished by employers, or who had to pay for child care, or even take unpaid time off of work, to serve. Yes, it is their duty as a citizen of this country. But when people suffer for doing their duty, it impacts the quality of their service. I know of no solution to this problem, but simply regret that what was such a great idea (both grand jury and petit jury duty) has become in many ways nothing more than an inconvenience.
-
After the first GJ hearing, the second should have a simple choice; indict the accused for the stated crime or the prosecutor for harassment.
I'm pretty sure a state GJ can do that, they just don't know it. Federal GJ's have been pretty much neutered; I can't remember what law stripped away their independent powers.
-
I've presented a couple of cases where there the matter was "no billed." Additional investigation turned up additional evidence, and upon second presentation, an indictment was returned. Don't want to have a case considered legally dead because it was presented too soon, or have later important evidence found and it essentially be useless.
In a case where there is actual new evidence that legitimately wasn't available at the time of the original hearing, I can see allowing it. If it's just a case of the prosecutor sitting on something so he can pull it out to get another hearing when the first one fails to indict, then it should only proceed to a second one with a new prosecutor after the first one has been hanged.
Also, in order to enforce such a thing, you would have to remove the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings. Otherwise, how would you know if a case had or had not been presented to the grand jury.
It would be in the accused's interest to reveal the information at that point. Presumably in the case of a no-bill, the accused gets some record. If not, it certainly wouldn't be hard to write him a note that he can use next time.
-
It would be in the accused's interest to reveal the information at that point. Presumably in the case of a no-bill, the accused gets some record. If not, it certainly wouldn't be hard to write him a note that he can use next time.
I'm picturing a bad prosecutor situation, where he presents an indictment time and again for some embarrassing charge, which is repeatedly no-billed, but a record keeps getting built up. As a potential employee, I can imagine you might want to check the grand jury record (if you could). You see a guy with a dozen no-bills, I bet you are going to hesitate before you offer the guy a job. "Why?" you ask. "He was no-billed." Once or twice you might chalk up to bad luck or circumstances. Get to a bunch, and you are going to think that the guy is either hanging with the wrong crowd, or is actually committing the offenses and getting away with it.
Personally, I still want no records kept if a case was considered and no-billed by a grand jury, simply because there should be no record for anyone to even ask about. You all know how records can (and are) often used in bad ways. heck, you guys don't even want your doctor to know you own a firearm, but you want the government to keep records of how many times you had charges against you presented to the grand jury? :lol:
-
???
The only reason to make GJ no bills public is to attach jeopardy. So that would take care of the "dozens of no bills on record" issue, I would think.
-
???
The only reason to make GJ no bills public is to attach jeopardy. So that would take care of the "dozens of no bills on record" issue, I would think.
I think it's a bad idea to create "double jeopardy" situations before any real jeopardy attaches. I think it is a bad idea to make public records of all cases presented to a grand jury. I think I could probably do a better job of talking about all of this with more time and fewer interruptions. That said, I think it has been a long day at the courthouse, and I need to go home an open one of the bottles of Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ales I picked up the other day.
-
You do make a good point about keeping the GJ proceedings secret, which I didn't know about. Wasn't trying to argue one way or the other.
-
He makes a good point about the ale too!
-
I'm picturing a bad prosecutor situation, where he presents an indictment time and again for some embarrassing charge, which is repeatedly no-billed, but a record keeps getting built up. As a potential employee, I can imagine you might want to check the grand jury record (if you could).
Or you could just search the archives of the local newspaper.
Besides, as Balog already pointed out, the whole point here is to stop allowing the prosecutor to do that. Having to suffer through that process would already have ruined the accused far more than being passed over for one job.
-
You do make a good point about keeping the GJ proceedings secret, which I didn't know about. Wasn't trying to argue one way or the other.
No worries. Just been a bad afternoon. Popped the top on the first ale, but a second may be necessary. Again, looked at photos no one should have to see...
-
Or you could just search the archives of the local newspaper.
Besides, as Balog already pointed out, the whole point here is to stop allowing the prosecutor to do that. Having to suffer through that process would already have ruined the accused far more than beiing passed over for one job.
Let me ask, because this doesn't happen in my part of the world. Reporters are not allowed anywhere near the grand jury room in this county. The only records they can see are what indictments are handed down. So, there are no newspaper archives to search. As to the suffering through the grand jury process, an accused plays no part In that process. Many who are accused are not even aware that they have been accused until after an indictment has been handed down. Those people truly "suffer" nothing unless indicted.
-
Somehow every time a republican got the looksee from a grand jury in travis county texas it was front page news.
-
The only records they can see are what indictments are handed down.
Around here, the accused is supposed to be notified. While the defense doesn't technically have any rights at the GJ hearing, there are things the prosecutor can give permission for. If the defense doesn't know about the hearing, then it's impossible to ask permission, thus the notification. However, for anyone with two brain cells to rub together, this also means lawyering up right away, if for no other reason than to avoid saying anything to media or investigators that might cause problems, and that ain't cheap. Of course, in most cases, they've already been arrested at or near the time of the offense, so they're aware, and the arrest reports are printed in the newspaper.
Now, since the arrest is public knowledge, it sure would be handy if everybody also got to see a no-bill result, or if the accused was given some documentation of same to do with as he or she sees fit, but good luck even getting a not guilty verdict published if it wasn't a really high profile case.
-
As long as qualified immunity covers as wide an area as Rosie O'Donnell's yoga pants, abuses like this will continue.....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
-
Is there a problem with this? We're all talking in theory about a prosecutor being able to present a case for indictment more than once, but I don't know that I have ever seen it actually done when I was a prosecutor. Honestly, sometimes getting a jo bill was a great way to get rid of a loser case while having someone else to blame. And, I worked in a relatively small county, where grand jury was one day per week. But, it is still a good bit of time and effort to prep and present a case...I know there are probably times it has happened, and someone mentioned Tom Delay earlier. But seeker_two's comment made me wonder how much "abuse" like this actually happens. Or is it all just a fun debate among APS members (again)?
-
Is there a problem with this? We're all talking in theory about a prosecutor being able to present a case for indictment more than once, but I don't know that I have ever seen it actually done when I was a prosecutor. Honestly, sometimes getting a jo bill was a great way to get rid of a loser case while having someone else to blame. And, I worked in a relatively small county, where grand jury was one day per week. But, it is still a good bit of time and effort to prep and present a case...I know there are probably times it has happened, and someone mentioned Tom Delay earlier. But seeker_two's comment made me wonder how much "abuse" like this actually happens. Or is it all just a fun debate among APS members (again)?
APS members tend to be the type of people that roll their eyes at "Government wouldn't do THAT! That could never happen."
Income tax over 10%? That would never happen!
Confiscation of arms? That would never happen!
Regular violations of 4A via stop-n-frisk? That would never happen!
So... if it's a means for government to abuse someone... they WILL find a way to do it. Double-plus so if it's a loophole where they feel they can get away with it just because it isn't proscribed. For government, no prohibition = permission in their eyes. They've swapped roles with the citizenry according to COTUS powers designations, and inverted the 10A.
-
Roger that, AZ. Just wondered if anyone knows of a problem along these lines, or if we are in preventative mode....
-
But seeker_two's comment made me wonder how much "abuse" like this actually happens.
A complete lack of transparency and documentation would make it pretty difficult to discover or prove abuse of the system as well.
-
A complete lack of transparency and documentation would make it pretty difficult to discover or prove abuse of the system as well.
Very true. I knew when I asked the question, it was pretty much rhetorical, because there is no way to know. It's truly a double edged sword. Grand jury proceedings were made secret to protect their investigations, protect the members from undue outside influences and retaliation, and also protect those who get no-billed, as we've been discussing. On the other edge, secrets in the justice system don't really inspire trust among the masses, are subject to abuse, and are pretty much a bad thing.
-
In Travis County, it is pretty blatant how they will go after a political opponent multiple times. May be slight variations to be considered a shiny & new accusation.
-
I just now saw a picture of the heroic deceased deputy ;/
Seriously, how did he possibly meet fitness requirements ??? :facepalm:
-
Not all agencies have fitness reqiirements. I have seen a lot of obese LEOs in my career. Frightening.
-
a lot have standards when you are hired then not so much.
-
a lot have standards when you are hired then not so much.
Truth, and not just with fitness. >:D [popcorn]
-
a lot have standards when you are hired then not so much.
Fortunately, my wife has the same policy.
'Course, my obesity is her fault.
-
Fortunately, my wife has the same policy.
'Course, my obesity is her fault.
Unpossible.
Who ever heard of a scapegoat with a scapegoat?
-
Maybe he had too many coffee cans.