No knock warrant for...

[Sho'Nuff]

Identity theft and fraud should never, ever justify a no knock warrant. These are 'trivial' reasons to jeopardize so many lives with historically horribly planned home invasions.
. . .

History of violence means maybe kicking a door down in the early morning and surprising them just might not be the best idea. Capturing them as they pull into their driveway from the grocery store seems to make more sense to me, but then they wouldn't be able to justify having all these swat teams and toys, would they?

Not all no knock warrants are "guns drawn" affairs. And certainly not many of them reult in death. I would wager that most no-knock warrants are issued in circumstances where there is a good chancethat evidence can be destroyed.

As to your second point, you may be right. But search warrants authorize law enforcement to search specific locations for specific things. They are not arrest warrants, which would allow law enforcement to get the "jump" on a suspect as he/she comes home from the grocery store.

And we can have an argument about whether or not no knock warrants are ever proper. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[thegimp03]

Link is broken...

 

[FDF12389]

Looks like the original article has been edited.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home

A U.S. government official confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. The official would not say specifically why the raid took place. He did say the search was not related to student loans in default.

He went on to say OIG is a semi-independent branch of the U.S. Department of Education that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud and embezzlement of federal aid.

 

[waggy]

I'll preface this with the statement that a relative of mine is a federal agent with the dept of education.


4. At least some of the reports I have read indicated that an agent from the department of ed confirmed that the department issued the warrant. I have confirmed with my relative that the department does not have the power to issue warrants. They have to go through DOJ or another legal avenue.

hmm wikilink!

if you watch the video they show the warrent. it says "Department of Education OIG"

 

[waggy]

Looks like the original article has been edited.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home

lol


"He went on to say OIG is a semi-independent branch of the U.S. Department of Education that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud and embezzlement of federal aid"

figured it would be mroe then being late.

poor guy.

 

[FDF12389]

After watching the video and reading the story, the only thing I am sure of is that most of the people that posted in this thread based their comments on the thread title and original post and not the actual video and story or they lack the ability for critical thought.

-KeithP

The original news story indicated a no knock warrant by the way the raid was executed. I'm uncertain now but unable to edit the title. The original article also clearly said it was for defaulted student loans.

 

[PrinceofWands]

If any of you had relatives that were police officers, you would not be outraged to learn that certain tactics, such as no knock warrants, are employed in circumstances where officer safety is a concern. What is more of a tragedy? A guy having to sit for a few hours in a car (albeit possibly wrongly), or a law enforcement officer who was killed in the line of duty?

I do know many in law enforcement and have worked side by side with them for many, many years.

The abuse of individual rights is INFINITELY worse than the injury or death of an officer when that officer is participating in wrong. I would rather see every friend I've ever had, my daughter, and myself die in the line of duty than see a nation that endorses the types of abuses our current government does. Anyone who wouldn't is the same type of terrible human being who commits these atrocities.

What's right matters, nothing else does.

 

[boomhower]

Good grief. First the story was bogus and hoping to gain readership by grabbing from the mess in Arizona. There was no swat team, there was no no-knock warrant. Second, it's obvious there had to be something else going on other than the guy not paying his loan. We don't have a debtors prison. His wife is involved in some crap and they came for her. What that is is anyone's guess.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Good grief. First the story was bogus and hoping to gain readership by grabbing from the mess in Arizona. There was no swat team, there was no no-knock warrant. Second, it's obvious there had to be something else going on other than the guy not paying his loan. We don't have a debtors prison. His wife is involved in some crap and they came for her. What that is is anyone's guess.

IMO the fact that they kicked down his door to get his wife, who was not home, is a MAJOR problem.

You should have the right to feel secure in your home, we're already at the point where you might as well "risk" getting robbed/raped by home invaders since there's such a huge possibility it could be the cops trying to serve a ridiculous warrant.

 

[mugs]

IMO the fact that they kicked down his door to get his wife, who was not home, is a MAJOR problem.

You should have the right to feel secure in your home, we're already at the point where you might as well "risk" getting robbed/raped by home invaders since there's such a huge possibility it could be the cops trying to serve a ridiculous warrant.

They didn't have an arrest warrant for his wife, they had a search warrant for the property. Search warrants are usually issued to find evidence of a crime. They had the right to search the property for evidence of the wife's alleged crime whether or not she was there, and whether or not anyone opened the door for them. That is how search warrants work.

 

[Linflas]

They didn't have an arrest warrant for his wife, they had a search warrant for the property. Search warrants are usually issued to find evidence of a crime. They had the right to search the property for evidence of the wife's alleged crime whether or not she was there, and whether or not anyone opened the door for them. That is how search warrants work.

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 doubt the people that ratified that would consider kicking in a door simultaneously with shouting POLICE! WARRANT! to be reasonable absent some obvious imminent danger.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

hmm wikilink!

if you watch the video they show the warrent. it says "Department of Education OIG"

That means the OIG requested the warrant, not that they issued it.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

hmm wikilink!
"

Nothing in the wikilink indicates that the OIG has the power to issue warrants. As explained in the article quote a few posts before this one, the ED agent indicates that the OIG EXECUTES warrants. That is not the same thing as issuing them.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

lol


"He went on to say OIG is a semi-independent branch of the U.S. Department of Education that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud and embezzlement of federal aid"

figured it would be mroe then being late.

poor guy.

Ding ding! See folks? Don't get your panties in a wad when you do not have all the facts.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Don't get your panties in a wad when you do not have all the facts.

Try telling the LEO's that before the next no-knock, shoot first ask questions later raid.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I do know many in law enforcement and have worked side by side with them for many, many years.

The abuse of individual rights is INFINITELY worse than the injury or death of an officer when that officer is participating in wrong. I would rather see every friend I've ever had, my daughter, and myself die in the line of duty than see a nation that endorses the types of abuses our current government does. Anyone who wouldn't is the same type of terrible human being who commits these atrocities.

What's right matters, nothing else does.

So, are you arguing that the police should not have the power to enter a persons home to find evidence of a crime, not matter the crime or the persons harmed by it?

Should we allow criminals to hide out in their homes, happily fap'ing away while the police wait outside and hope he comes out for a smoke? C'mon. That is ridiculous and you know it. Don't throw your hands up and scream "atrocity" when the only thing you know about this case is what was reported by a hack news agency that materially changed its own article hours after it was posted.


Now, I agree that our government is not perfect, and it occassionally engages in abuses (most notably and recently the provision and maintenance of entitlement programs that we do not need and we cannot pay for), but I will rarely if ever begrudge the government for enforcing a reasonable law.

Also, would you opinion change if it was revealed that the woman involved embezzled funds from the government (er . . . the taxpayers, i.e., YOU)? I'm not saying that is what happened. But from discussions with my relative, that does happen quite a bit.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So, are you arguing that the police should not have the power to enter a persons home to find evidence of a crime, not matter the crime or the persons harmed by it?

Should we allow criminals to hide out in their homes, happily fap'ing away while the police wait outside and hope he comes out for a smoke? C'mon. That is ridiculous and you know it. Don't throw your hands up and scream "atrocity" when the only thing you know about this case is what was reported by a hack news agency that materially changed its own article hours after it was posted.

Now, I agree that our government is not perfect, and it occassionally engages in abuses (most notably and recently the provision and maintenance of entitlement programs that we do not need and we cannot pay for), but I will rarely if ever begrudge the government for enforcing a reasonable law.

Also, would you opinion change if it was revealed that the woman involved embezzled funds from the government (er . . . the taxpayers, i.e., YOU)? I'm not saying that is what happened. But from discussions with my relative, that does happen quite a bit.

Don't believe I said anything similar. I said that under the conditions stated in the article it was a fascist abuse that should be met with lethal force, and I stand by that. There is NO debtors prison in this country, and that level of force for such a crime would be ridiculous.

Once again, the ONLY time such force by the government would be valid is to meet an immediate threat to innocent persons. In ANY other situation it is abuse.

Absolutely would not matter if she was embezzling funds, not $1 nor $1,000,000,000. That level of force is NOT justified where no imminent threat of harm exists. The police should require hard, solid evidence that A) the threat exists, and B) the individual is currently at the location for the warrant. In any other case, lesser force is warranted.

Better by FAR that a guilty person gets off light or completely than an innocent person is damaged.

 

[Triumph]

6. No one on this forum knows jack squat about the alleged victim or his wife. Perhaps he/she had a criminal background or a history of violence? If any of you had relatives that were police officers, you would not be outraged to learn that certain tactics, such as no knock warrants, are employed in circumstances where officer safety is a concern. What is more of a tragedy? A guy having to sit for a few hours in a car (albeit possibly wrongly), or a law enforcement officer who was killed in the line of duty?

Except that, similar to all powers granted to the government, they end up being abused and eventually used for convenience rather than for their intended use. Look at cases of LE using Patriot Act permissions to catch drug offenders. I thought the patriot act was for preventing terrorism?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

UPDATE for the OP

Department Of Education: Raid Of California Man's Home Was Not Related To Defaulted Student Loans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...tion-raid-default-student-loans_n_873272.html


COPY OF WARRANT

http://www.news10.net/news/pdf/Ed-dept-Wright-warrant-060711.pdf

 

[rivan]

Try telling ATOT that before the next no-facts, one sided story involving LEOs.

Fixed, for ATOT.

Edit: I like how the HuffPost photo still shows a police assault-y team.

Also, the warrant is missing something - it refers to SUBJECT PREMISES #1 and SUBJECT PREMISES #2. It has a page describing #1, but not #2.

It also outlines the possible violations: Financial Aid Fraud, Conspiracy, Theft of Government Funds, False Statement to a Government Agency, and Wire Fraud.

The video story says (paraphrased): " also attached is a list of names, none of which (the homeowner) recognizes" as if there's no explanation for the list, but right in the warrant it explains what that list is, in section e. of the Items to be Seized: Correspondence between any of the persons listed on Page 4 of this Attachment.

Terrible/slanted reporting FTL. The local station should be ashamed of itself for not giving this story ANY investigation.

 

[waggy]

Nothing in the wikilink indicates that the OIG has the power to issue warrants. As explained in the article quote a few posts before this one, the ED agent indicates that the OIG EXECUTES warrants. That is not the same thing as issuing them.

Department of Education Press Secretary Justin Hamilton confirmed to The Huffington Post that the agency's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) did indeed order the action, although he said it was not about an issue over student loans in default.


so the Department of Educations OIG ORDERED the warrent..

i don't see how what i said was wrong.


but hell i think most knew it was more then a late loan.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Department of Education Press Secretary Justin Hamilton confirmed to The Huffington Post that the agency's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) did indeed order the action, although he said it was not about an issue over student loans in default.


so the Department of Educations OIG ORDERED the warrent..

i don't see how what i said was wrong.


but hell i think most knew it was more then a late loan.

ORDERING and EXECUTING a warrant is NOT the same as ISSUING a warrant.

I'll break it down for you:

A=agency
P = Perp
C= court

A wants to search P's home for things related to a crime that A thinks P committed.

Consitution prevents unreasonable search and seaizures, so A has to get a warrant to search P's home (a specific location) for evidence (specific things).

A has an agent spend a day or two drafting a memo in support of a search warrant.

A then transmits the memo and warrant request to C for review and issuance of the warrant. I.e., A REQUESTS (orders) the warrant from C.

C reviews the warrant request, determines if A has met all the requirements to search P's home. If so, C ISSUES the warrant.

A then takes the warrant ISSUED from C, and EXECUTES it at C's home.

EDIT: and for the record, ordering an "ACTION" is not the same thing as issuing a warrant either.

 

[SparkyJJO]

This is what happens in AH-MERI-KA when you let capitalism do whatever it can, to make the most money.

Vulture capitalists ruling usually come out of the USA. We have turned into a nation of profit enforcement, at all costs.

Enjoy it, you mindless drones.

Drugs are bad.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Edited to remove content that I probably should not have posted

 

[Sho'Nuff]

.
Absolutely would not matter if she was embezzling funds, not $1 nor $1,000,000,000. That level of force is NOT justified where no imminent threat of harm exists. The police should require hard, solid evidence that A) the threat exists, and B) the individual is currently at the location for the warrant. In any other case, lesser force is warranted.

Better by FAR that a guilty person gets off light or completely than an innocent person is damaged.

Pardon me, but WHAT level of force was improper in this case? No one was harmed. No one was struck. The only thing that was damaged was the man's door. FWIW, I have it on good authority that the agents put the man in his car for HIS OWN safety, and removed hs kids from the home, again, FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY.

If this was a situation where police barged in unannounced looking for evidence of wire fraud and ended up shooting someone, I would agree with you 100%. But no such thing happened in this case.

And in some instances, I might agree that it is better for 1000 criminals to go free than one innocent be harmed. But our history has proven that particular moral stance as not always being the best course of action.


E.g., the american revolution - led to untold thousands of inncents being killed. Same thing with the abolition of slavery, WWII, etc. In some cases, innocents die because the greater good required that an undesirable action had to be taken.

Are those situations equivalent to situations involving everyday crime? Possibly yes, possibly no. But like a lot of things in the law, what is right and what is wrong is not as black and white as anyone would like. So a compromise must be struck, and some will like it, and some will not.