Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just heard in the news about the four policemen shot in the Lakewood Drug Raid, but did not get all the details. Can anyone comment on it? Thank you,
I just heard in the news about the four policemen shot in the Lakewood Drug Raid, but did not get all the details. Can anyone comment on it? Thank you,
Basically, they suspected the guy was involved in drug and weapons trafficking. They executed a "no-knock" search warrant to take him by surprise so he could be arrested and the house searched, but he was ready waiting with a .357 Magnum and got off several shots. He hit four guys, one a bit more seriously, but everyone was OK in the end and none remain in the hospital.
Ironically, this shooting didn't occur in the section of Lakewood you would think. It actually happened in one of the town's very nice, quiet suburban neighborhoods and in a beautiful colonial home.
There where lots of online news stories about it in the local online press. I look at it as fighting fire with fire, kind of like if your house was on fire and the FD came over and fought it with flame throwers and torches. Violence provokes violence.
No Knock warrants need to come to a halt. they come to a bad ending like this way too much
Would it not have been worse if the police announced they were there beforehand? Yes, the guy came out "guns blazing" but if there was ZERO element of surprise, the attack could have been even worse on the cops entering the house.
No-knocks can be risky, but they serve a purpose and were developed for a good reason.
Basically, they suspected the guy was involved in drug and weapons trafficking. They executed a "no-knock" search warrant to take him by surprise so he could be arrested and the house searched,
Don't want to sound like an idiot, I'm sure I'm using the wrong words here but.....
I would assume a "search warrant" would allow officers to search a premise and search ONLY. IF something was found, then the occupant could/would be arrested.
You mention a "no-knock" search warrant was executed to take him by surprise to be arrested.
Does a search warrent automatically give officers the right to arrest the occupant of the premise before anything illegal is discovered?
If not, why do they need an element of surprise if the reason for the officers to be there is merely to "search"?
Don't want to sound like an idiot, I'm sure I'm using the wrong words here but.....
I would assume a "search warrant" would allow officers to search a premise and search ONLY. IF something was found, then the occupant could/would be arrested.
You mention a "no-knock" search warrant was executed to take him by surprise to be arrested.
Does a search warrent automatically give officers the right to arrest the occupant of the premise before anything illegal is discovered?
If not, why do they need an element of surprise if the reason for the officers to be there is merely to "search"?
Well, the point of a search warrant is to search for evidence. Yes, you need reasonable suspicion that something will be found, however the point of searching for something is to make your case. In a no-knock search warrant, you're not reducing the level of anyone's civil rights (same standard as a regular warrant), you're just saying that because of the potential for violence, police should not give the suspect time to "arm up." I misspoke in my original post by using the word "arrest." It was a search warrant, not an arrest warrant.
A search warrant gives officers the right, based on a certain level of evidence already obtained, to search for "the smoking gun" so to speak. In other words, if the police think you are dealing drugs, they wouldn't be able to get a search warrant unless there was some evidence you were actually doing it - ie. a cooperating witness, surveillance video, etc. Of course, they can't convict you without the actual drugs, and I doubt if you had kilos of coke floating around you would let the cops in. If nothing is found to justify an arrest, one will not be made.
The no-knock part just says the police can bust down the door rather than knock and barge in. Aside from your having to replace a door, there really isn't much of a difference. If there's a search warrant, your home will be searched whether you allow it or not. The reason for no-knock search warrants is because there are guys like the Lakewood guy who, if given time to arm himself, will shoot those who have come to search for evidence. Obviously, it's not always perfect and the suspect will get a few shots off anyway, but generally it seems like a good tactic when the suspect is known to have no qualms with shooting officers.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems the only difference is not giving the BG time to arm himself in instances were you expect resistance whether you announce yourself or not. Like you said, the premise is going to be searched either way.
I guess these are instances where you kind of expect something to happen so no reason to give them a "heads up"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
