Gunco Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
udge: Raid on Hells Angels clubhouse was illegal; officers moved in seconds after knocking

Thursday, December 2, 2004

(12-02) 10:18 PST PHOENIX (AP) --

A judge threw out key evidence against a man accused of assaulting a police officer during a drug raid on an alleged Hells Angels clubhouse, noting the raiders waited only a few seconds to move in after an early-morning knock on the door.

Judge Michael Wilkinson chastised members of a multiagency crime task force and ruled they illegally entered the building on July 8, 2003, violating search-and-seizure laws.

Wilkinson said it was understandable that Michael Wayne Coffelt, 42, came to the door carrying a handgun. The knock on the door came around 4:45 a.m., and officers then waited just six seconds before using a diversionary grenade and breaking a window to enter the building.

Carrying the handgun "would appear to be reasonable behavior, given the hour and the fact that the house was under attack," he said in an order issued Monday.

Coffelt is scheduled to stand trial Jan. 5 on charges of aggravated assault against a police officer.

Officer Laura Beeler wounded Coffelt with a rifle, saying that he had fired his weapon at her first. Investigators later concluded Coffelt never fired.

Defense attorney Richard Schonfeld said Wednesday that the judge's order effectively gutted the prosecution's case. A spokesman for the county attorney's office said no decision had been made on whether to appeal.

Coffelt has sued Beeler, the Glendale Police Department and others in federal court, seeking unspecified damages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,413 Posts
Good! As much as I despise the drug trade and other cirminal enterprises I do not like no knock raids. I see no justification for them other than cowboy style tactics. These kinds of raids should be left for use in war theaters. I never understood why they don't just get these people by grabbing them while they are out and about.

Besides that there are the cases where agenst went to the wrong homes and people have been hurt that had nothing to do with the case.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
From the limited amount of information in that post, it appears the judge made the correct call when he threw out the evidence.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I don't expect the sheriff to come crashing through my door but I always wonder what I would do if some mistake was made and some cowboy came crashing through my door.

I am afraid I would react by firing.
 

·
deactive ~ and in trouble
Joined
·
1,781 Posts
Back 20 years or so ago here the cops did a ninja, no knock, no ID middle of the night raid on a house. They'd gotten a tip from a concerned neighbor there was drug dealing going on. They busted in, guns drawn and Dad stumbles out of the bedroom with a pistol blazing. He killed one cop and they tried to throw him under the jail for it.

The Grand Jury refused to indict him due to the fact there wasn't but 2 joints in the house in their teenaged boys room, they invaded the house without identifying themselves, all dressed in black while waving weapons around. The big questions asked after that was why he only shot one and what gun owner wouldn't have done the exact same thing.

The whole incident changed how they could raid homes here. They have to do pesky things like stop to gather evidence now. There has to be Identification made and the entry team have to wear something that says who they are on it.

The family did the smart thing and moved as soon as dad got out of jail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,386 Posts
Crash through my door, somebody won't survive. It might be me but I'll make it worth their time.
 

·
Gunco Irregular
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
Whatever your feelings about groups such as the Hells Angels, they shouldn't be treated any differently than any one else. As soon as there is a list of folks who's rights are not as important as everyone elses, for what ever reasons, is when I fear that I'll be on that list somewhere for some reason. I think Pogo is right, not having all the details I'd side with the Judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
I had a "officer" knock on the door last week around midnight. keep in mind I had no idea who it was. anyway 3 loud thunds on the door. my inside lights went out, I clearly said get down over their. to my wife pointing to her position. i grabbed my personal favorite defender. next to the door I racked in a round. made shure the door was locked. looked out through a slot and saw nouthing on the steps. so I opened the door a bit with the gun by my side. when I had the door ajar I saw the officer BACKING UP!! he was allready on the other side of the drive way. I think he heard everything.... he was at the wrong address... oops
I feel it was a good idea to back up, it compleatly defuzed the situation. when I comfortably saw who it was I told him he was at the wrong place and he was on his way. They have to know citizens are going to be ready for the unexpected!!! it is up to them to approach in a way that will end up with a positive result or it can get ugly.

anyone rember when "THEY" raided a house, but went to the wrong house. they shot the dog, when the owners came through the woods a all out gun fight started. "they" even shot dead a woman in a window holding a baby. in the end a few were dead before "THEY" realized it was totaly the wrong place. it got ugly.
 

·
Long Arm of the LAW
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
A no knock warrant is probably a search warrant for the residence and maybe all person within. In Va there is no such thing as a no knock warrant anf the police must knock and announce themselves and allow a resonable time for someone to answer (sometimes defined as 10 seconds). But if it can be articulated that the residents are probably armed and involved in the drug trade where armed violence is the norm, a no knock can be executed.
 

·
Class 07 FFL/SOT
Joined
·
6,297 Posts
Officer Laure Beeler needs to have her ass sued off and charged with attempted murder.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Group Accused Of Stealing Drugs, Cash, Guns

LOS ANGELES -- A second former Los Angeles Police Department officer has admitted he was among a group of rogue cops who committed invasion-style robberies across Southern California staged to look like police raids, it was reported Thursday.

Jesse Moya, 27, has agreed to plead guilty to a conspiracy charge for his role in the criminal organization, which has been accused of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs, cash, guns and other items over about four years starting in 1998, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing court documents.

The onetime Southeast Division officer has agreed to cooperate with federal authorities. He faces up to 10 years in prison and at least a $250,000 fine, but his sentence could be reduced if he provides "substantial assistance" to investigators, according to The Times.

Moya's plea deal comes less than two months after former LAPD officer Ruben Palomares admitted in court documents that he was the ringleader of the group.

Palomares, Moya and their cohorts wore police uniforms and badges and employed "police tactics" during their robberies, some of which became violent, according to the documents cited by The Times.

During some of their holdups, the suspects used LAPD squad cars that were taken from the Police Academy without authorization, according to the court records cited by The Times.

Besides Palomares and Moya, at least four other current or former law enforcement officers are suspected of participating in the crime spree, The Times reported. Two are Long Beach police officers, one is a former LAPD officer and another is a former Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy now working as a prison guard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Now, this is going to sound weird coming from the resident leftie, but...

Discount for the moment the practical problems of a no-knock warrant - i.e. the risk the police take on of being shot as intruders.

Why does the law require knocking and serving a warrant prior to entering to search in the first place? Any legal-beagles out there know? Seems to me that once a court has authorized the police to search your place against your will, we've moved past being polite about it. Where does the requirement to knock come from?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Most states have a requirement to give notice. I think most states have something like Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure where the requirements are found.

It codifies what is considered "reasonable" searches and seizures. Sneak and peak or no knocks are limited exceptions to the rule and fairly recent innovations for exigent circumstances.



FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IX. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Rule 41. Search and Seizure.

(a) Authority to issue warrant. Upon the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government, a search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued

(1) by a federal magistrate judge, or a state court of record within the federal district, for a search of property or for a person within the district and

(2) by a federal magistrate judge for a search of property or for a person either within or outside the district if the property or person is within the district when the warrant is sought but might move outside the district before the warrant is executed.

(b) Property or persons which may be seized with a warrant. A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any

(1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offense; or

(2) contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or

(3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or

(4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause or who is unlawfully restrained.

(c) Issuance and contents.

(1) Warrant upon affidavit. A warrant other than a warrant upon oral testimony under paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the federal magistrate judge or state judge and establishing the grounds for issuing the warrant. If the federal magistrate judge or state judge is satisfied that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, that magistrate judge or state judge shall issue a warrant identifying the property or person to be seized and naming or describing the person or place to be searched. The finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part. Before ruling on a request for a warrant the federal magistrate judge or state judge may require the affiant appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witnesses the affiant may produce, provided that such proceeding shall be taken down by a court reporter or recording equipment and made part of the affidavit. The warrant shall be directed to a civil officer of the United States authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing any law thereof or to a person so authorized by the President of the United States. It shall command the officer to search within a specified period of time not to exceed 10 days, the person or place named for the property or person specified. The warrant shall be served in the daytime, unless the issuing authority, by appropriate provision in the warrant, and for reasonable cause shown, authorizes its execution at times other than daytime. It shall designate a federal magistrate judge to whom it shall be returned.

(2) Warrant upon oral testimony.

(A) General rule. If the circumstances make it reasonable to dispense, in whole or part, with a written affidavit, a Federal magistrate judge may issue a warrant based upon sworn testimony communicated by telephone or other appropriate means, including facsimile transmission.

(B) Application. The person who is requesting the warrant shall prepare a document to be known as a duplicate original warrant and shall read such duplicate original warrant, verbatim, to the Federal magistrate judge. The Federal magistrate judge shall enter, verbatim, what is so read to such magistrate judge on a document to be known as the original warrant. The Federal magistrate judge may direct that the warrant be modified.

(C) Issuance. If the Federal magistrate judge is satisfied that the circumstances are such as to make it reasonable to dispense with a written affidavit and that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, the Federal magistrate judge shall order the issuance of a warrant by directing the person requesting the warrant to sign the Federal magistrate judge's name on the duplicate origin warrant. The Federal magistrate judge shall immediately sign the original warrant and enter on the face of the original warrant the exact time when the warrant was ordered to be issued. The finding of probable cause for a warrant upon oral testimony may be based on the same kind of evidence as is sufficient for a warrant upon affidavit.

(D) Recording and certification of testimony. When a caller informs the Federal magistrate judge that the purpose of the call is to request a warrant, the Federal magistrate judge shall immediately place under oath each person whose testimony forms a basis for the application and each person applying for that warrant. If a voice recording device is available, the Federal magistrate judge shall record by means of such device all of the call after the caller informs the Federal magistrate judge that the purpose of the call is to request a warrant. Otherwise a stenographic or longhand verbatim record shall be made. If a voice recording device is used or a stenographic record made, the Federal magistrate judge shall have the record transcribed, shall certify the accuracy of the transcription, and shall file a copy of the original record and the transcription with the court. If a longhand verbatim record is made, the Federal magistrate judge shall file a signed copy with the court.

(E) Contents. The contents of a warrant upon oral testimony shall be the same as the contents of a warrant upon affidavit.

(F) Addition rule for execution. The person who executes the warrant shall enter the exact time of execution on the face of the duplicate original warrant.

(G) Motion to suppress precluded. Absent a finding of bad faith, evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued under this paragraph is not subject to a motion to suppress on the ground that the circumstances were not such as to make it reasonable to dispense with a written affidavit.

(d) Execution and return with inventory. The officer taking property under the warrant shall give to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken or shall leave the copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken. The return shall be made promptly and shall be accompanied by a written inventory of any property taken. The inventory shall be made in the presence of the applicant for the warrant and the person from whose possession or premises the property was taken, if they are present, or in the presence of at least one credible person other than the applicant for the warrant or the person from whose possession or premises the property was taken, and shall be verified by the officer. The federal magistrate judge shall upon request deliver a copy of the inventory to the person from whom or from whose premises the property was taken and to the applicant for the warrant.

(e) Motion for return of property. A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure or by the deprivation of property may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized for the return of the property on the ground that such person is entitled to lawful possession of the property. The court shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted, the property shall be returned to the movant, although reasonable conditions may be imposed to protect access and use of the property in subsequent proceedings. If a motion for return of property is made or comes on for hearing in the district of trial after an indictment or information is filed, it shall be treated also as a motion to suppress under Rule 12.

(f) Motion to suppress. A motion to suppress evidence may be made in the court of the district of trial as provided in Rule 12.

(g) Return of papers to clerk. The federal magistrate judge before whom the warrant is returned shall attach to the warrant a copy of the return, inventory, and all other papers in connection therewith and shall file them with the clerk of the district court for the district in which the property was seized.

(h) Scope and definition. This rule does not modify any act, inconsistent with it, regulating search, seizure and the issuance and execution of search warrants in circumstances for which special provision is made. The term "property" is used in this rule to include documents, books, papers and any other tangible objects. The term "daytime" is used in this rule to mean the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. according to local time. The phrase "federal law enforcement officer" is used in this rule to mean any government agent, other than an attorney for the government as defined in Rule 54(c), who is engaged in the enforcement of the criminal laws and is within any category of officers authorized by the Attorney General to request the issuance of a search warrant.

[Amended Dec. 27, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Apr. 9, 1956, eff. after 90 days from Apr. 9, 1956; Apr. 24. 1972, eff. Oct. 1, 1972; Mar. 18, 1974, eff. July 1, 1974; Apr. 26, 1976, eff. Aug. 1, 1976 and Oct. 1, 1977; Act July 8, 1976, P. L. 94-349, ? 1, 90 Stat. 822; Act July 30, 1977, P. L. 95-78, ?? 2(e), 4, 91 Stat. 320, 322, eff. Oct. 1, 1977; Aug. 1, 1979; Aug. 1, 1987; Dec. 1, 1990; Dec. 1, 1993.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Thanks, Custer!

And that seems to answer in the affirmative something that I've wondered about: If the cops search your home with a warrant looking for evidence of one crime, but what they find instead is evidence of another, can that evidence be used against you?

For example, if the cops come looking for a meth lab but it turns out you don't have one and never did - but they do find your kiddy-porn collection, can the kiddie-porn collection be introduced as evidence if the warrant for the non-existent meth lab was legit and issued in good faith?

Looks like it can. Izzat right?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Thanks, Custer!

And that seems to answer in the affirmative something that I've wondered about: If the cops search your home with a warrant looking for evidence of one crime, but what they find instead is evidence of another, can that evidence be used against you?

For example, if the cops come looking for a meth lab but it turns out you don't have one and never did - but they do find your kiddy-porn collection, can the kiddie-porn collection be introduced as evidence if the warrant for the non-existent meth lab was legit and issued in good faith?

Looks like it can. Izzat right?
Yep, if the intial search was righteous, so is the rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
Yep, if the intial search was righteous, so is the rest.
Bummer.

Anyone here want to buy a kiddie-porn collection?
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top