Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

If you think being murdered in your sleep because police showed up to the wrong address and nothing happening as a consequence afterwards is ok or remotely defensible, while protesters get charged with felonies for throwing bottles of water... yeah, I just can't.  That's deadly toxic authoritarianism.  The morality of the situation is crystal clear, regardless of whatever the law says.  And if the law is at odds with that, then the law is wrong.  It's not even worth debating.

Believe it or not, I'm not usually very strict black/white us/them about my politics.  But this is one of a couple points where I am.  When it comes to cases like Philando Castille, Breonna Taylor, or George Floyd - if you don't 100% believe that the officers involved in these cases need to face harsh consequences, then you're just blatantly in favor of a society where authorities can slaughter anyone they want with impunity and probably think it's ok because you don't expect to ever be subject to that yourself.  And that is the most generous interpretation.

[Maximum Spin]

They do decide what's legal, but do you have an opinion?  They're only human, and you seem to care about the Constitution a lot.

I think the framers made the fascinatingly poor decision to punt on the issue by banning, in the 4th amendment, "unreasonable searches and seizures" while leaving "unreasonable" open for interpretation, thus making it impossible to be sure that the first half of the 4th bans anything at all. It's actually even worse in principle than it is now, because the Constitution doesn't technically give the Supreme Court the power it has arrogated to decide that (and other issues of Constitutional interpretation), so it was just... completely left open.
(Obviously, I have my own definition of 'unreasonable', but I'm not even going to begin to argue that anyone else should be required to abide by it.)
Then again, in all fairness, the framers never intended for the Bill of Rights to apply to the states at all (that was added with the 14th, again not actually in the text but the Supreme Court decided it did), because they seem to have never conceived that the people would let their own states turn against them. So arguably, the intended scenario as it applies to the federal government may have been "the federal government can't do more in terms of searches and seizures than the states would". That may explain their failure to lay out clear limits, but, I'm a textualist, not an originalist, so it doesn't really help.
If I were a Justice, I'd be employing the rule of lenity here and saying that the only viable conclusion is that the 4th bans searches and seizures which are unreasonable to the defendant, but that's obviously a losing game because it would essentially make it impossible to search and seize at all (unless you can somehow demonstrate that the defendant found it reasonable to, say, be arrested). I'm fine with that, but I'm an anarchist. It doesn't play well in Peoria. So if you want to be able to have a police power and stop people from doing crimes, the limits of the 4th are up to the courts, which, honestly, is usually a very good system. The main problem is that people apparently like no-knock warrants.

[Doomblade187]

While I understand that grand juries are usually manipulated to some extent by prosecutors, I always *love* it when the prosecutors manipulate it away from the people they're supposed to prosecute. There was plenty of grounds to enact higher charges given the murder of Brenna Taylor, lack of clear identification by police (emphasis on clear), and clear lack of fire control (the neighbors next door *and above*)

https://wfpl.org/breonna-taylors-neighbors-unsatisfied-with-charges-attorney-says/

[Bumber]

If you think being murdered in your sleep because police showed up to the wrong address

It would be great if people could stop spreading that lie:

Her address was listed on the search warrant based on police's belief that Glover had used her apartment to receive mail, keep drugs or stash money. The warrant also stated that a car registered to Taylor had been seen parked on several occasions in front of a "drug house" known to Glover.

[Frumple]

Or in other words, they did a no-knock raid on a location they had no legitimate reason to suspect the person they were actually after was at. That turned out to be the wrong fucking place after they were done illegitimately invading it and killing someone living there.

Pretty sure that's what you call the wrong address.

[hector13]

Glover was her ex, and her current boyfriend opened fire on the police because he apparently thought it was Glover breaking in.

It doesn’t sound much like Glover was welcome there. Makes you wonder quite why the police thought what they did about the place.

[Maximum Spin]

I'm sure the police knew every detail of their petty relationship drama, and it's not like nobody has ever lied about breaking up with someone, or let an ex stash something at their house out of sentimental reasons, before.

[hector13]

Just having a car sitting outside watching the apartment would have informed them of that. Having someone following the actual target of the raid also would let them know that. The target who, by the by, was arrested the same night 10 miles away in a raid on a drug house. They knew where he was, there was no need to raid an otherwise irrelevant apartment.

Police work is hard, man, but not so hard you have to raid someone’s apartment just because they were in a relationship at some point in the past and just so happened to maintain amicable relations otherwise.

[Bumber]

Just having a car sitting outside watching the apartment would have informed them of that. Having someone following the actual target of the raid also would let them know that. The target who, by the by, was arrested the same night 10 miles away in a raid on a drug house. They knew where he was, there was no need to raid an otherwise irrelevant apartment.

Police work is hard, man, but not so hard you have to raid someone’s apartment just because they were in a relationship at some point in the past and just so happened to maintain amicable relations otherwise.

They would have known Glover wasn't there. They wouldn't have known whether or not Glover had stashed a bunch of drugs and money there.

[Maximum Spin]

Yeah, she shouldn't have had a relationship and broken up with the guy, it's that easy. Be submissive to your man! Then you only have to Stand Your Ground from petty thieves and poor people!

If it's an ethical police break-in, the law has a way of shutting the whole thing down.

There's no point strawmanning like this.

The fact is, no, the police can't rule out the possibility that there might be evidence in a house if a known criminal previously lived there, and, as long as someone associated with that person still lives there, they can't rule out the possibility that the associated individuals might try to cover for the person or dispose of evidence. That isn't enough for a warrant on its own, but they had someone who told them that there was evidence there. Granted, "somebody once told me" isn't a great evidentiary basis either, but unfortunately it is common practice, so it sufficed. GIVEN that, I don't know what you expect the police to do. They had a valid warrant and they served it correctly. If you want to blame someone, at least blame the judge who signed off on this.

[hector13]

They didn’t need to raid Taylor’s apartment because they clearly had enough to arrest the guy without the evidence they may (or may not!) have received from Taylor’s apartment.

To summarize, then: they arrested their target because they had the evidence necessary to justify doing do so, raided a former partner, killed her, dropped the charges against her current boyfriend because there was enough evidence to suggest they didn’t announce themselves as cops (else he’d be going into a deep, dark hole for a long time) and then the city settled out of court with her family for a wrongful death suit, while nobody is actually being punished for the wrongful death, only shooting the walls of her neighbours apartment.

Justice in 2020.

[Maximum Spin]

They didn’t need to raid Taylor’s apartment because they clearly had enough to arrest the guy without the evidence they may (or may not!) have received from Taylor’s apartment.

That's... really not how it works. They only need probable cause to arrest. They need evidence if they actually want to charge the guy, and the more evidence, the better.

ETA: There's a legal principle that matters here. I don't actually agree with it myself, but it's settled law, and it applies in this case. "The law is entitled to every man's evidence." That means, no matter who you are, even if you have nothing to do with a case personally, if you have evidence that affects it, the police can take that evidence from you. This is most commonly brought up in the case of subpoenas but also applies here.

[delphonso]

Okay, assuming the police believed evidence was present in Taylor's place - why is a no-knock at 1AM the only strategy to get it?

[Maximum Spin]

Okay, assuming the police believed evidence was present in Taylor's place - why is a no-knock at 1AM the only strategy to get it?

The usual fear is that, like I said, potential associates might try to destroy or otherwise hide the evidence if warned about the raid. Of course it's not the only strategy, but it's a common one and one a judge accepted. Based on what I know of the case thus far, I would say it would have been smarter to surveil the residence, detain both of the inhabitants outside, perhaps when they are going to or from work or what have you, then execute the search once the residents are accounted for. But there's probably some reason why they didn't do that, even if it's just "that isn't procedure", and I'm sure it would have still been considered a travesty.

[delphonso]

Right but they didn't and that's the point MS. We all understand that the police are doing this within the law - but Justice and Legality are two different things. To me, they knew at least two people would be in the house at 1AM. The no-knock is an act of violence, they were expecting to put the boots to whoever was in there (considered already guilty if they believed evidence to be present). That's the part I have a problem with.