Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SWAT kills Marine in his home

I think the most dissapointing thing about a lot of threads, is that those who know the least about the subject are often the most vocal. On a subject like this, where a gathering of the neighborhood kooks is the ultimate goal, it doesn't matter so much. Sometimes though, people really do need good information on something and the arrival of the same bunch always means that any useful discussion is over.

Yepper. That's why I rarely post on these kinds of threads.

Oh,..I don't know.

Seems to me that a pretty broad cross section of Americans are against having the police shoot them down like dogs.

That one shot right over his head I bet.

I'm pretty sure everybody feels that way, but kooks are special.

Well,...you can call me a "kook" if you want,...but government sanctioned home invasions ain't gonna fly in this country for long.

Some people take the killing of their family members pretty seriously,..and the fact that it was at the hands of a cop is incidental to them.

How TRH ever graduated law school remains a mystery.

Why he couldn't pass the bar, isn't.

Bristoe;

You've never done a damned thing, except reach for an open bottle. Don't try to make like you'd do any if/when push comes to shove.

I don't remember calling you one. I leave the interpretation of who's kooky to the masses.

Law school was a breeze. Played golf three days a week on average throughout the whole thing, and still graduated solidly in that meaty part of the curve. Never took any part of the Bar Exam I didn't pass, either.

Well then, you're smart enough to quit while you're ahead.

1. U.S. vs Banks involved Federal officers. Wilson involved State officers. There is a subtle difference set out in the two cases because State's can further restrict search criteria as conducted by State officers, but not Federal.

2. Banks held essentially the same findings as in Wilson. There are still the same mitigating factors (As I mentioned with Wilson) that can allow LE to bypass a reasonable wait. In Banks, the court found that since Banks was being searched for selling cocaine out of his home, that the mitigating factor of destroying the cocaine in the toilet was enough to bypass a reasonable wait.

3. The courts still held in Banks, as with Wilson, that LE must meet one of the 3 mitigating criteria, if they are to force entry before a reasonable time period.

The bottom line with Banks is this finding:

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.

If the items being sought in the warrant at the Marine's house could easily be flushed, then the "up to one minute" will probably meet the criteria for a valid 4th Amendment search under Wilson or Banks. If however, they do not, and the SWAT team can't prove that they realized they were in imminent danger by waiting (that one is going to be tough, given the retreat upon finding him armed) or that waiting would be futile, then this particular search may not be kosher.

The bottom line on Wilson and Banks is each search is different. Expectation of a reasonable wait is expected, barring recognition of one of the mitigating factors at the scene by LE.

I'm on my phone, so this'll be brief.

1. It was a SCOTUS ruling, it sets a precedent for local and federal officers.

2. It was a dope warrant.

3. See #1 in reference to a reasonable wait while serving the item contained in #2.

And who wrote the warrant and presented it to the judge?

When someone asks why they didn't go after the alleged perp, rather than his family home, they are questioning the wisdom of seeking a search warrant, instead of an arrest warrant.

The alleged crimes weren't taking place at his home, they were allegedly conducted by the perp, thus, if there was enough evidence/reasonable suspicion to get a judge to sign off on a search warrant, there probably was enough to seek an arrest warrant instead.

1. SCOTUS rulings do not automatically set equal precedence for Federal and State officers.

From Hudson v. Michigan, which was a followup ruling to Banks....



2. 15-20 seconds was only permissible given the circumstances of U.S. V. Banks.

In Souter's majority opinion, he specifically stated that each situation must prove the merits of entering early. In fact he specifically stated that although 15-20 seconds was fine in this particular case given the type of drug sought and the size of the apartment, a townhome might take several minutes to answer the door and thus barring mitigating circumstances, that might be the period required for a reasonable wait.


And the argument that 15 to 20 seconds was too short for Banks to have come to the door ignores the very risk that justified prompt entry. True, if the officers were to justify their timing here by claiming that Banks's failure to admit them fairly suggested a refusal to let them in, Banks could at least argue that no such suspicion can arise until an occupant has had time to get to the door,6 a time that will vary with the size of the establishment, perhaps five seconds to open a motel room door, or several minutes to move through a townhouse. In this case, however, the police claim exigent need to enter, and the crucial fact in examining their actions is not time to reach the door but the particular exigency claimed. On the record here, what matters is the opportunity to get rid of cocaine, which a prudent dealer will keep near a commode or kitchen sink. The significant circumstances include the arrival of the police during the day, when anyone inside would probably have been up and around, and the sufficiency of 15 to 20 seconds for getting to the bathroom or the kitchen to start flushing cocaine down the drain. That is, when circumstances are exigent because a pusher may be near the point of putting his drugs beyond reach, it is imminent disposal, not travel time to the entrance, that governs when the police may reasonably enter; since the bathroom and kitchen are usually in the interior of a dwelling, not the front hall, there is no reason generally to peg the travel time to the location of the door, and no reliable basis for giving the proprietor of a mansion a longer wait than the resident of a bungalow, or an apartment like Banks's. And 15 to 20 seconds does not seem an unrealistic guess about the time someone would need to get in a position to rid his quarters of cocaine.


Obviously Souter did not see 15-20 seconds as some benchmark that would apply in every case.

As far as this being a narcotics warrant, we don't know what they were seeking. If it was a bag of cocaine, sure, LE could rely on imminent destruction as a reason to jump the wait. If however the search was for a bale of marijuana and weapons, that's not going to be viewed by the courts the same as U.S. V. Banks if they follow Souter's guidance.

Pot, kettle....

Unlike you, I haven't painted everyone that has a differing opinion from my own in this thread, as some kind of anti-government, tinfoil wearing, conspiracy riddled, hippie, cop hater.

I could point out your apparent head in the sand, pollyanna syndrome, but that would only apply to you and not the others that disagree with me on certain aspects of this event.

You 'da man!

There are lots of reasons to seek a search warrant instead of an arrest warrant...

You don't have to disclose the identity of an undercover officer (if one was involved) on a search warrant but you do for an arrest warrant. That would make a difference in an on going investigation if more suspects are involved, which the article indicates is the case.

But mostly because I don't want just enough evidence for an arrest. I want enough evidence for a conviction of a bad guy. Hence the search warrant and subsequent gathering of evidence before an arrest.

Sure, I can see that. But can't you pick him up for questioning and then WHILE he's down at the department execute that search warrant with minimal chance of LEO's or his family getting hurt?

No adrenaline rush in that. Not to mention, you've got to justify all that expensive SWAT equipment and training.