Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Peptide Pro
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsPeptide ProUGFREAK

Fatal 'no-knock' search trial draws interest

ROID WARRIOR

High End Bro
Platinum
A 15 to 20 second delay after police knock before entering. Arguably not enough time to destroy evidence, but certainly enough time for one to arm themselves and fire at the first member of the entry team through the door. Not a good decision by the Court.


Fatal 'no-knock' search trial draws interest

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- In April 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court set limits on when authorities can conduct "no-knock" police searches. The decision came just five days after a 21-year-old drug suspect was killed in a no-knock raid.

John Hirko Jr. died when Bethlehem police stormed his home without knocking and threw a flash-bang device into a front window, inadvertently sparking an intense fire that prevented them from rescuing Hirko after they had shot him.

An autopsy showed Hirko died from the bullets police fired from both the front and rear of the house -- allegedly after he fired once at them. Hirko was struck 11 times in all, nine times in the back.

A civil rights lawsuit charging wrongful death and negligence over Hirko's death was scheduled for trial Thursday in federal court in Allentown, and is expected to be closely watched in the region and beyond.

A sizable judgment in the Bethlehem case could prompt the city of 78,000, which has a $34 million annual budget, to raise taxes or float a loan. The plaintiffs rejected a $500,000 settlement offer, the city's liability insurance limit at the time, saying it would take $20 million to settle.

"I think everybody's concerned," Mayor James Delgrosso said this month.

No priors, no knock
Hirko had no prior convictions, but police said they thought that executing the search warrant could prove dangerous. A confidential informant who allegedly bought drugs from Hirko three times -- once just before the raid -- reported that Hirko was in the living room using heroin and cocaine, with a handgun nearby.

Police, dressed in unmarked black clothes and masks, made a small hole in the window and tossed in the flash-bang device, which sets off a blinding flash and loud noise. At about the same time, according to their lawyer, they shouted "Police!," an assertion plaintiffs plan to challenge.

"Everything we did was proper and within the bounds of constitutional law at that time," said Bethlehem Solicitor Joseph Leeson Jr.

The two sides also will dispute whether Hirko's gun was fired. The defense said it was found wrapped in a cloth where he kept it, with all 10 bullets still inside. Leeson said one bullet was missing.

State Attorney General Mike Fisher, whose office investigated Hirko's death, later termed it a justifiable homicide.

Fifteen second guideline
Across the country, innocent residents have died during no-knock searches, including a 75-year-old Boston minister and a 57-year-old New York woman who both suffered heart attacks when police raided the wrong homes.

"Every little town and burg now believes that they need a paramilitary assault team," said lawyer John Karoly Jr. of Allentown, who represents Hirko's survivors and landlord.

Attorney John Wesley Hall Jr. who's written a textbook on search and seizure law, said the approximately 50 no-knock cases reported in the legal literature each year are just a fraction of the total undertaken.

"The reported cases are just the tip of the iceberg, because so many cases get disposed of at the trial level by a guilty plea, or because the cops did (the raid) right," Hall said.

In its 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court said authorities must be able to show they had a reason to believe a suspect would be dangerous or destroy evidence before entering homes without knocking and announcing themselves. Police should otherwise give people the choice to evacuate safely, the court said.

Federal courts have since ruled that police must wait a "reasonable" amount of time -- more than 15 or 20 seconds -- for a response if they do knock.

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a Las Vegas case in which police burst into a drug suspect's apartment while he was in the shower. An appeals court ruled that authorities acted unreasonably in battering down the door just 15 to 20 seconds after their initial knock.

RW
 
The thing is, if no one gets killed during a raid like this, I don't see how it can effect the 4th amendment rights of the person is acted upon... with or without the 15-20 second wait. A simple "announcement" and then a break should be sufficient.

This 15-20 second wait, I wonder if it erases the exigent circumstance exception to destruction of evidence? -- if so, then I think the Supreme Court will have to change some SERIOUS case law -- something they really haven't done very often in the past -- and they don't like the lower courts doing it either.

C-ditty
 
Here, there's no delay when executing a "no knock" warrant. ERT team kicks the door down, clear the house/room and then we can go in. Under our internal policies, ERT must go first. No "blue jeans posse", no Miami Vice bullshit. Safer for everyone involved.
 
manny78 said:
Here, there's no delay when executing a "no knock" warrant. ERT team kicks the door down, clear the house/room and then we can go in. Under our internal policies, ERT must go first. No "blue jeans posse", no Miami Vice bullshit. Safer for everyone involved.

But then the Vice guys don't get the "bust" -- they just get clean up... I'd much rather see Don Johnson and his "Tubbs" counterpart get the credit. ;)

C-ditty
 
no-knock raids have killed lots of people. There were a couple such incidents in Denver Metro which were later determined to have been obtained on purjured warrants. IIRC, the cops used known liars to obtain the warrants and then executed no-knocks on innocents. I think I remember a guy getting shot dead in Miami a few years back when they had the wrong address.

No-knocks are eggregious and anyone who is supportive of civil liberties should oppose their use vehemently. The nation survived just fine for a couple centuries without them.
 
liftshard said:
no-knock raids have killed lots of people. There were a couple such incidents in Denver Metro which were later determined to have been obtained on purjured warrants. IIRC, the cops used known liars to obtain the warrants and then executed no-knocks on innocents. I think I remember a guy getting shot dead in Miami a few years back when they had the wrong address.

No-knocks are eggregious and anyone who is supportive of civil liberties should oppose their use vehemently. The nation survived just fine for a couple centuries without them.

We also didn't have the problems we do now... a couple of centuries ago. We didn't have 3 strike and your out rules, we didn't have multi-billion dollar drug operations -- albeit some of the guys who get busted are on the lower rungs of those importing schemes...

No-knock warrants aren't really the same as invalid warrants where the police failed to get probable cause. Those warrants just plain suck, and whether they are no-knock or not, the same problem would be there -- they obtained the warrant through poor means.

C-ditty
 
We didn't have a drug war then.

The "War on Drugs" brought all of this. Now, I'm not going to speak for everyone on this board, but I think we're probably all in favor of legalization of AAS or at least relaxing the penalties for their use and possession. If we are for those drugs, we should be for others. No-knocks, stop and frisk, SWATs, and all of this paramilitary behavior is fallout from this absurd Prohibition-mentality Drug War that we are losing.

We cannot win the Drug War by attacking it from the supply side. I mean, we have mods on here as well as narcs, and sources of Schedule 3 AAS are not hard to come by. Likewise, who couldn't get some Schedule 1 pot in a few minutes? There is no way to interdict enough product with this War to end consumption. Decriminalization would end the profitability of drug sales and fighting over MONEY is what is causing the lethality in the drug trade.

The pot trade, in the aggregate, is bigger than for any other drug. However, there has been an absolute ABSENCE of the type of violence typified by the coke trade. The reason why is because societal and legal tolerance of Pot, despite its Schedule 1 status (!), vis a vis cocaine (Sched 2 !). Pot is legal to own, grow, and possess in most states. It's OK to have pot. Consequently, nobody is really willing to fight too hard over control of its production. Anyone can do it. The margins are a lot lower because of this. There is ample demand and decriminilization of pot laws have made supply a lot higher for it. It's the easiest illegal drug to obtain, the cheapest, and the one that carries the lowest profit margin for dealers. Consequently, it ain't worth shooting someone over in the vast majority of cases.

If we copied the pot model for other drugs, we would not need no-knocks (we never DID), or the massive curtailment of civil rights that we've experienced as a result of Prohibition. In fact, police corruption, fradulent warrants, use of wiretaps, purjury, all of this, has increased dramatically as the pressure of the Drug War has increased. You cannot win a price war with a drug dealer, though; it's just not possible. You can't price guns, cars, anything out of his reach because, if there is demand, SOMEONE will take the risk to meet it with supply.
 
There is absolutely nothing legitmate gained by requiring the police to knock and wait before entering when serving a warrant. It only serves to compromise the safety of police. It was bad enough to require that the warrant be served during the day without extenuating circumstances, but to make them wait while some desperate perp "arms up" and get ready to blast the first cop through the door is almost reckless disregard for human life.

The Supreme Court Justices have never "gone through a door," and they're looking at this in too much of a vacuum. While they sit comfortably in their robes in woodpaneled offices, there are cops in Bed Stuy, Brownsville and East New York that have to contend with life and death situations on a daily basis (ie., perps with guns and knives, high speed pursuits, bricks thrown from roof onto cops.) And it's all for a whopping thirty-something thousand per year in NYC. The fact of the matter is that there are two-bit street crackheads who will kill a cop just to stay out on the street one more day and get high.

RW
 
RW...you know that as a possible illegal drug user that you will potentially be subjected to this type of action at some point in your life, right?

No knocks kill innocent people. Nobody has ever marshalled any evidence that the rate of police injury or death has risen or fallen as a result of the use of the no knock. No knocks are fallout from the Drug War, which is an intellectually bankrupt concept. The Drug War has encouraged perjury, fraud, corruption, police overzealousness, all of these scare stories in Rick's book - ALL of them came from the Drug War. I think we can severally agree that these are "bad things." I don't want to hear about "perps" and drug dealers and whatnot, because THEY is US. People are here on this board seeking advise on the use of an ILLEGAL DRUG. People on this board VOLUNTEER to check the validity of DRUG DEALERS. Some on this board ARE drug dealers, many are drug USERS. You CANNOT say "well, MY drug is OK" while everyone else's drugs should be banned; that's simply illogical.

I mean, in your sig of every post, you make reference to the injustice of the Drug War...I had no idea it was to lionize the conduct of those officers "throwing people on the ground over one bottle of juice."
 
I agree with Lifthard's concerns over the War on Drugs, and I'm a critic of it. But I strongly disagree with his statement:

"You CANNOT say "well, MY drug is OK" while everyone else's drugs should be banned; that's simply illogical."

I can and DO say it (regarding AAS), and it's not only logical but supported by facts. All drugs are NOT created equal. Just because a bunch of politicians decide a previously prescription-only drug should be added to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) doesn't mean it belongs there. And just because one drug doesn't belong there doesn't mean that all others don't belong there. Some may, others may not. We can and should rationally challenge the appropriateness of scheduling on a substance-by-substance basis. For all the reasons set forth in my book in great detail, steroids should NOT be banned by the CSA (as was the position of the DEA, FDA and AMA in the congressional hearings on the subject). (Once a substance IS scheduled, however, we cannot expect selective enforcement.)
 
Top Bottom