PDA

View Full Version : Ignorance of the law IS a legitimate defense...............................if you're a cop




amy31416
06-18-2011, 10:40 AM
Oh, and if the law isn't "crystal clear," they don't have to follow it either. No wonder they don't want to hire anyone who's even remotely intelligent for actual law "enforcement."


Bellevue family sues FBI over 'terrifying' raid



By Brian Bowling
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, June 16, 2011

The lasting impact of the raid on Gary Adams' home became clear in a comment from his 3-year-old granddaughter during a recent trip to the pharmacy.

"She said, 'Granddad. Police. Hide,' " Adams, 57, of Bellevue recalled Wednesday while discussing the federal lawsuit he filed against the officers who burst into his home March 3. [Kid's a quick study.]

Led by FBI Special Agent Karen Springmeyer, about a dozen officers used a battering ram to enter Adams' rented Orchard Street home in a search for Sondra Hunter, then 35. But Hunter hadn't lived at that address for almost two years, while Adams and his family had been living there for more than a year, according to the lawsuit filed by Adams and 10 other family members.

The family crowded into a Downtown conference room with their lawyer, Timothy O'Brien, to discuss the case.

An FBI spokeswoman referred all calls to the U.S. Attorney's Office, where a spokeswoman declined to comment.

The lawsuit says that officers knew, or should have known, that Hunter no longer lived there. By executing an arrest warrant at a residence that wasn't Hunter's, they violated the family's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and their Fifth Amendment right to due process, the lawsuit says.

The officers were part of a local, state and federal task force rounding up more than three dozen people suspected of being members of the Manchester Original Gangsters street gang. Hunter was still at large at the end of the sweep, and court records show that she was living in Long Beach, Calif., at the time. She returned to Pittsburgh when she heard she was wanted by the police.

She is charged with conspiracy and heroin trafficking and is free on a $25,000 unsecured bond.

Adams said he knew Hunter's family from when they lived in Manchester, but there was no other connection between them and no reason for police to believe that Hunter lived in the house.

Other than citations for traffic violations and scalping tickets without a permit, Adams has been a law-abiding citizen.

The incident destroyed his confidence in the police and his ability to sleep through the night, he said.

"They had guns on my wife, my babies. I'd like to know how they would feel -- the people in my house -- if that happened to them," he said.

Denise Adams, 58, said seeing the red dots from the officers' targeting lasers crawl across her children's faces also has cost her faith in law enforcement.

"I don't want to, but this was terrifying," she sobbed.

Duquesne University law professor Bruce Ledewitz said arrest warrants don't give police carte blanche to enter any building because they think a suspect is inside. Instead, such warrants only authorize police to go to the person's residence.

Police usually enjoy "qualified immunity" from lawsuits even when they make mistakes, as long as they were carrying out their duties responsibly, he said. Entering a residence without probable cause, however, would strip the immunity away from those officers.

University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris said the family faces several obstacles in winning. In particular, he thought it would be tough for them to overcome the officer's qualified immunity because the Supreme Court has repeatedly raised the bar for suing police officers.

"Not only do they have to make a mistake, it has to have been particularly egregious," for them to lose immunity, he said. "They have to be violating a law that was absolutely crystal clear, and they have to have known it."



Read more: Bellevue family sues FBI over 'terrifying' raid - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_742235.html#ixzz1Pe7cVWYw

Yieu
06-18-2011, 11:04 AM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't see what's not "crystal clear" about that. And they don't have to know they've violated it, if it's violated then it's violated. It's in the Constitution for a reason. I'm not sure where the question in that law professor's mind about it comes from, because he just finished saying it was a violation of the 4th, and that's all that matters.

No search warrant to enter the home? Too bad, get another warrant "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Warrants are not Writs of Assistance to enter any building they want to search for someone or something.

Our right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is sacrosanct.

heavenlyboy34
06-18-2011, 11:14 AM
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I don't see what's not "crystal clear" about that. And they don't have to know they've violated it, if it's violated then it's violated. It's in the Constitution for a reason. I'm not sure where the question in that law professor's mind about it comes from, because he just finished saying it was a violation of the 4th, and that's all that matters.

No search warrant to enter the home? Too bad, get another warrant "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Warrants are not Writs of Assistance to enter any building they want to search for someone or something.

Our right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is sacrosanct.
That's far too much information for a cop to understand. ;)

Anti Federalist
06-18-2011, 11:48 AM
"She said, 'Granddad. Police. Hide,'

Smart kid.

amy31416
06-18-2011, 11:53 AM
In my opinion, it's a pretty egregious mistake when 6 guys all in military gear, guns drawn & aimed bash down your door. It's certainly a message that mom and dad can't keep you safe.

I don't know about you guys, but if that had happened when I was a kid, I'd have had nightmares for a long, long time.

pcosmar
06-18-2011, 11:55 AM
Our right to privacy enshrined in the 4th is sacrosanct.

So was our right to keep and bear arms, (2nd amendment).
That has long been violated.

flightlesskiwi
06-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Smart kid.

upon quizzing my daughter "if someone bad came to our the house, what would you do and would you call the police?" she answered "no, i'd {the plan of action we expect her to take} and i'd let you and dad take care of it."

kids are great.:D

AGRP
06-18-2011, 12:01 PM
about a dozen officers used a battering ram.

There's the problem. We need new restrictions placed on battering rams.

GuerrillaXXI
06-18-2011, 12:06 PM
"They had guns on my wife, my babies. I'd like to know how they would feel -- the people in my house -- if that happened to them," he said.Hopefully someday they (or their ilk) will know how it feels. Nothing is going to change before then. The system has decided that police are not to be held accountable for their wrongful actions unless there is a massive public outcry about a particular incident. Then, and only then, will there be justice administered, but it will entail the minimum possible punishment.


"Not only do they have to make a mistake, it has to have been particularly egregious," for them to lose immunity, he said. "They have to be violating a law that was absolutely crystal clear, and they have to have known it."Which means all they have to do is play dumb and say, "I didn't know that was against the law." Then they'll get off scot-free.

thehungarian
06-18-2011, 12:07 PM
There's the problem. We need new restrictions placed on battering rams.

Doubtful that the officer had a permit to use such an item. The course is 6 weeks long and costs $2,000.

But really, they saw it fit to mention that the old man didn't have a permit for SCALPING TICKETS? Sweet Christ.

flightlesskiwi
06-18-2011, 12:25 PM
it all comes down to this idea (what i used to describe another person's opinions and actions in an email):

he covering his individual responsibility in a blanket of ignorance to give precedent to his own pet interests.

Vessol
06-18-2011, 01:01 PM
I must comment that the topic should be amended to say.

"Ignorance of the law IS a legitimate defense......if you're a cop or a politician."

Anti Federalist
06-18-2011, 03:37 PM
In my opinion, it's a pretty egregious mistake when 6 guys all in military gear, guns drawn & aimed bash down your door. It's certainly a message that mom and dad can't keep you safe.

I don't know about you guys, but if that had happened when I was a kid, I'd have had nightmares for a long, long time.

I'll fess up to the fact that just the thought of it gives my nightmares as an adult.

That's part of the reason for it: fear and intimidation.

ChristianAnarchist
06-18-2011, 06:02 PM
Actually, historically "ignorance" has always been a defense for everyone. It's only in recent times that our gang of thugs have tried to tell the people that it is not a valid defense. That was one of the reasons for the "trial by jury" so that one's peers could determine if the circumstances warranted a punishment (and your peers would certainly consider "ignorance" in their determination).