Radley Balko on the aftermath of a Cambridge, Md. “no-knock” police raid gone very wrong: “if the Fourth Amendment is due to the Founders’ offense at British soldiers forcibly entering homes in daylight hours after knocking and announcing to search for contraband, it seems safe to say that the Founders would be appalled by the fact that today, dozens of times each day, heavily armed government officials break into homes, often at night, without first knocking and announcing, in order to conduct searches for contraband.” More: Adam Bates, Cato.
2 Comments
The legal issue in this case seems to be some bogus appellate fact-finding. We know the cops didn’t tell the truth. Why would an appellate court credit their side of the story in the face of a jury verdict? And who’s to say that there was even marijuana in the place? The word of the cops. Well, they weren’t honest about the entry, so how can their word be trusted as to what was found there.
This guy shouldn’t have died.
And why, pray tell, is a completely innocent person supposed to do if that person has a gun and whose house is the subject of a midnight no-knock raid? Even if he has no idea the intruders are cops, he, at a minimum, is going to be prosecuted if he shoots one. And if he does nothing, they may not be cops.
And, of course, what’s a two year old supposed to do about a flashbang grenade that goes off in his face?
[…] Radley Balko on the aftermath of a Cambridge, Md. “no-knock” police raid gone very wrong: “if the Fourth Amendment is due to the Founders’ offense at British soldiers forcibly entering homes in daylight hours after knocking and announcing to search for contraband, it seems safe to say that the Founders would be appalled by the fact that today, dozens of times each day, heavily armed government officials break into homes, often at night, without first knocking and announcing, in order to conduct searches for contraband.” More: Adam Bates, Cato. [cross-posted from Overlawyered] […]