Texas Court Throws 2nd, 4th Amendments Under The Bus

[Feuer Frei!]

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

SOURCE

[Oberon]

2nd Amendment/Gun Control:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=210166
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=210304
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=209778
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=209157

Sounds reasonable.
If you are looking for a criminal and you believe the criminal is armed you wouldn't want to just stand there at the door and ring the bell.
You might get shot.

Alternately the householder might think that armed men at his door constitute a threat and that he has the protection of castle doctrine to shoot them.

Such are the joys of prolific ownership of firearms

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sounds reasonable.
If you are looking for a criminal and you believe the criminal is armed you wouldn't want to just stand there at the door and ring the bell.
You might get shot.

Alternately the householder might think that armed men at his door constitute a threat and that he has the protection of castle doctrine to shoot them.

Such are the joys of prolific ownership of firearms

Just...don't pour petrol on the fire, Tribesman, come on...you know where this thread goes, and there's no point in trying to stop it going there. Just let them have their complaints against Obama and move on to the next thread.

[Armistead]

Be great if you're in the door business, cops get a minor warrant, know the guy has a legal firearm and decide to bash the door in and charge in..and of course you'll have to pay to replace your door. Not only that, if when charging in as police have often done, they see your dog barking and trying to protect your home, it becomes a threat they can freely shoot it...but don't get upset or mad about it....Anways, crap like this leads to more people getting shot. Seen several cases where homeowner hears his door getting kicked in, gets his gun to protect family, police come in and see him standing there with a gun and shoot before he can figure it all out and lay his gun down.

[GoldenRivet]

as I am someone who generally keeps an eye out for this sort of news... i must point out that even for my taste, this "source" is one of this "They took Muh freedoms!" websites full of one sided opinion rather than multi-sided fact.

The problem i have with these sorts of sites is that anyone can take a complex and compelling story and turn it into a three quarter page text about how we arent free any more.

the fact is: When serving a warrant, the police have to knock and announce... UNLESS there is the possibility of threat to the police, or there is the risk that evidence sought in the warrant may be destroyed or otherwise rendered useless. This has been the supreme court ruling for decades if memory serves. As a police officer you can get to the door and say "you know what, this guy is armed, and there are certain bits of evidence we are looking for that can be destroyed if we knock, so Im making the command decision to exercise this warrant on a no knock basis"

In practical application, it does not matter if the warrant specified that the police must knock and announce - even if it says "You have to knock and announce" right there in black ink on page one of the warrant because they can over-ride that on site of search on a case by case basis.

this knock and announce requirement is most commonly over-ridden in cases of felony drug possession (such as was the case in the Quinn warrant) for the reason that the drugs, especially in smaller quantities, might be destroyed and rendered unusable as evidence.

The article you linked provides a number of quotes on the raid such as "... based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household." however there is no links nor is any credit given to source material of the quote be it a document or an individual. For this reason, you have to take this article for what it is... any form of responsible journalism or reporting interested in case facts rather than appealing to emotion would have credited source material or individuals when quoting anything.

Researching the Quinn Drug raid on my own i have learned that it has a complex back-story beginning over 20 years ago with a very intensely venomous divorce case involving Quinn which eventually culminated in child custody suits, accusations of violence and even drug possession and dealing etc.

my guess is that the police were justified in their decision to conduct a no knock entry, knowing many officers as i do... i am sure a large part of their decision had more to do with the nature of the drug evidence than the simple fact that the man was a gun owner.

Hell... in Texas you are more a suspect for not being a gun owner than being one.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

the fact is: When serving a warrant, the police have to knock and announce... UNLESS there is the possibility of threat to the police, or there is the risk that evidence sought in the warrant may be destroyed

That already seems like a dangerous amount of discretion given to the police. What stops them from using their discretion to rule every time there is a threat?

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

That already seems like a dangerous amount of discretion given to the police. What stops them from using their discretion to rule every time there is a threat?

I wonder that as well.

[Cybermat47]

Oh look, another flame war waiting to start

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Oh look, another flame war waiting to start

Not this time.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Oh look, another flame war waiting to start

It seems you don't have much faith in the community as a majority?
In relation to discussing subject matter?

So far you have:Tribesman, Armistead, GoldenRivet, Kazuaki Shimazaki II and August discussing the thread in a civil and mature manner.
That's a total of 8 out of 9 posters (excluding Steve) which is a pretty good hit rate so far.
I don't see the advantages of your post? In any way?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

It seems you don't have much faith in the community as a majority?
In relation to discussing subject matter?

So far you have:Tribesman, Armistead, GoldenRivet, Kazuaki Shimazaki II and August discussing the thread in a civil and mature manner.
That's a total of 8 out of 9 posters (excluding Steve) which is a pretty good hit rate so far.
I don't see the advantages of your post? In any way?

Sorry, it's just that in my experience, both in real life and on the internet, any discussion about gun control soon turns into an uncivil insult-fest.

I'm hoping to be proven wrong here.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

That already seems like a dangerous amount of discretion given to the police. What stops them from using their discretion to rule every time there is a threat?

The court

The police have to knock and wait a "reasonable amount of time" for you to answer. Once the reasonable amount of time has passed they are within the limits of the warrant to kick the door down.

however, When these decisions are made by police in the field to over-rule the warrant and kick the door down without knocking when it is a knock only warrant, it is reviewed apparently on a case by case basis by the courts.

For example:

If you were suspected of steeling say... a car, and you were keeping it in your garage, the cops would not be justified in just kicking your door down and running in on a standard knock and announce warrant... however if they DID make the decision to do that for fear that you were going to flush the stolen property down the toilet, the court would very likely not look kindly on it and would therefore not allow the vehicle being found on your property to be admitted as evidence in a trial against you.

Thats why this sort of field decision is easily made and can be justified in a court of law when they are searching out a baggie of crack and not easily upheld in a court of law when they are looking for 5 suitcases full of stolen money, or a stolen car, or a bedroom full of stolen TVs and XBOXs etc.

Example 2:

a couple of police cars pull up on your property to serve a knock and announce warrant for your suspected possession of a stolen vehicle (or whatever tangible property). A neighbor approaches the officers as they walk toward your front door and informs them that he has seen you through your windows walking around all morning with a rifle. The officers decided to just bust in, instead of knock and announce, they surprise you, you drop the rifle, hit the dirt and they subdue you, they find the stolen property and arrest you. Bam... it all holds up in court and you are found guilty. sorry, dont steal a car next time.

Example 3: (in line with the scenario from the original post)

a couple of police cars pull up on your property to serve a knock and announce warrant for your suspected possession of a stolen vehicle (or whatever tangible property). A neighbor approaches the officers as they walk toward your front door and informs them that he has seen you through your windows walking around all morning with a rifle. The officers decided to just bust in, instead of knock and announce, they surprise you...

...here's where it gets interesting

this time you dont drop the rifle, you are surprised as you round the corner and see guys with guns in your living room making a commotion... before you have half a second to think about whats happening you shoulder the rifle to defend yourself against what you assume to be an intruder.

the cops shoot you.

thats what happened in the original post scenario, the guy didnt die and he tells the court he shouldnt have been shot because the cops were on a knock and announce warrant but didnt knock and announce.

the position of the police is standing on the "out" that they didnt knock and announce because word on the street is you are armed and when you saw cops you shouldnt have drawn your gun.

obviously a sticky situation

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Sorry, it's just that in my experience, both in real life and on the internet, any discussion about gun control soon turns into an uncivil insult-fest.

I'm hoping to be proven wrong here.

Hopefully you will be proven wrong.

Leave matters to the moderators...predicting angst could have the effect of starting it.

Today is Sunday, the day of rest and peace and I'm looking forward to that.

[Wolferz]

Everybody knows that Texas is a whole 'nother country.
Texas law trumps everything else. Just ask Chuck Walker Norris.