You described a typical search pursuant to a warrant. At least they did not rip up the mattresses, smash holes in the drywall or smash the toilet tank. Wanna bet that one of the reasons the co-op is mad is because they jimmied the building’s entrance door?

They seem to be lucky that there were no missing items from the home that did not appear on the inventory sheet. Would you believe that a policeman could be so low as to pocket a roll of postage stamps and a Tekna light? It’s happened to one of my clients.

Besides, I love a vigorous, honest, and respectful debate on such questions. Lord knows I won’t find such often.

Is the following scenario “warranted” ???

It’s hard to even write this because the aftermath of a “warranted no-knock entry” can be life altering in itself. What has happened to this woman is dispicable.

Recently, an online acquaintance told me what happened to her. She is an elderly mother disabled by MS. She was awakened around 6 a.m. by noise of her door being busted. While still in her bed and barely awake she was being handcuffed. After finally realizing they were cops [some wore ski masks] she was told they were looking for her son. In between gasps for air from sheer fright..she tried to tell them that she couldn’t stand up because she had MS. The cops were not sympathetic - but finally believed her and allowed her to use the rest room while ramsacking the home.

The handcuffed the son who was in the next room o and began looking for pot or other drugs. What they found was quite minimal amount of pot - but the son was arrested and taken in.

During the search, the mother’s rare book collection was being thrown about - and the officers were making comments about the criminal nature of some of the titles, inferring that the mother was certainly street-smart in the criminal world. The home was left in total chaos and certain belongings were carelessly damaged.

Since that morning, the mom has had to bail the son, pay for legal costs etc…….then the worst part. After being a share owner in a co-op for 30 years, she was served with an eviction notice based on the son’s arrest nd the “threat to other residents” [of course this is without proof of conviction]

The stress that followed this whole disaster has exacerbated her medical condition - but now, her life is filled with legal fees, court dates, hearings etc. because she is now being forced to protect herself from the loss of her home.

This type of police activity may be necessary in some criminal activities - but c’mon, is our government in more fear of pot users than big drug rings or terrorists?

Or - do they take down the little guys simply because they can.

hu-nose

I think you are correct that Prof. Reynolds seems inconsistent on federalism when you compare his position on the Schiavo case with the no-knock issue. I certainly have my share of inconsistency on issues that I care deeply about and, as a regular reader of Instapundit, I think it’s fair to say that Prof. Reynolds is against - some might even say passionately against - no-knock raids.

Emerson said that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” The hard part is to tell the difference between foolish consistency and wise consistency. Perhaps it’s easier to view philosophical consistency as foolish when we care passionately about something. But when emotions are high, consistency is usually the wise choice.

It sounds like a fair amount of process — and exactly the amount that is due to the homeowner under the Constitution.

Maybe so. But, as another non-lawyer, I still have trouble with it.

The problem is that there is no active advocate for the homeowner’s side in the system. The police are actively advocating the investigation and/or entry; the magistrate is supposed to be neutral. There’s no balancing force of opposite polarity, if you will.

Such an opposing force might argue, for instance, that if the quantity of drugs is small enough to be flushed before a more pacific entry can be managed, the charges and convictions possible as a result do not justify such “active measures.” It’s impossible to kill a plant by snipping off a leaf at a time. Targeting the smallest amount legally definable as “dealing” does not address the problem in any meaningful way. We already have an elegant sufficiency of people doing five-to-ten for possession of an ounce of grass, so many that there’s no room in the lockups for car thieves and muggers even if the police had time off from chasing such “dealers” to catch them.

And yes, it’s ludicrous to expect the cops to call in counsel for the intended target to make such arguments. That’s not an endorsement of the existing process, though, it’s pointing up the limitations of it. There has to be some counterbalance, and the only thing I can think of is condign punishments for cops who screw it up. A week’s suspension with pay is not “condign”.

My own proposal — that, as part of the reform, police engaged in “no-knock” raids be forbidden to wear uniforms with pockets — is perhaps overcynical. Or perhaps it isn’t cynical enough.

Regards,
Ric

Using the entire power and attention of Congress to interfere in an sad and complex inter-family decision about the medical wishes of a severely injured woman that had been already been thoroughly adjudicated by state courts. That doesn’t seem to most federalists I know to be an appropriate use of federal power, even if they agree with the goal.

Congress acting to raise barriers to the use of police power to try to stem the tide of a widespread multi-state pattern of innocent American citizens being killed by police officers. That seems to be an appropriate use of federal power, especially considering that federal laws and policies, and federal court decisions, have created the environment that is leading to the problem.

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I think I’m still allowed to be a ‘federalist’, and I suspect my attitudes are fairly reflective of most who think of themselves as federalists.

[That’s a very thoughtful and well-expressed comment. Thanks. The answers depend on how you phrase the issues. You have phrased them in a way that makes federal intervention seem reasonable in the no-knock warrant situations, and unreasonable in the Schiavo case. But let me offer another way to characterize the law in Schiavo. It simply provided a limited role for the federal courts to review the decisions of state courts, to ensure proper application of a standard of proof required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s not necessarily an “interference” as long as federal standards have been met; at worst, it provides further delay in a case that had already been delayed for years. IMHO, that’s all Congress actually did. In the no-knock warrant situation — depending on the federal remedy sought– I could recharacterize the issue to make federal intervention sound unwarranted: the issue is about whether the federal government can tell local police how to do their jobs, in the absence of any constitutional violation. — P]

(If they had a working clueserver, they’d at least try to hire you as an ombudsman. They don’t.)