LEO breaks into your Home w/o warrant - Now you can shoot them!

[Chad Rogers]

Wrong again. The Patriot Act allows federal agents to sign their own warrants. This was what King George's army was doing that gave us the 4A. Now the 4A has been obviated and federal agents can do what King George's army used to do.

Is there a cite for this? Not the administrative kind of stuff like bank accounts and phone records, but the implied they can kick in your door with a search warrant they signed themselves (the substance of this thread).

Thanks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ctr]

Well once again this topic has morphed into one big "they better not come into my house" thread.

You cannot combine the the topics.
First officers serving a legal search warrant, issued by a judge, on the right house, be it yours or your neighbors, have every legal right to be there plain and simple. If you are the subject of an investigation leading to a search warrant YOUR HOME can and will be searched and evidence of a crime will be gathered as long as it is done within the scope of the law and you standing up yelling you can't be in MY HOUSE will not amount to a hill of beans.

Just like standing on the side of the road argueing with the officer about a ticket is not the place and time neither is it the place and time to argue the legalities of a search warrant while they are standing in your living room.

The second part of this debate is a totally different subject. Should officers make a mistake and hit the wrong house then yes they should be liable for their mistake and anything that happens but it is still a mistake but there is a big difference between the two and you cannot combine them.

Laws like this have there pros and cons and I would hate to be the first one to be the test case. Many folks quote the stand your ground laws as protecting them from prosecution in their states in regards to a crime being committed against them but as we have seen these cases are no longer cut and dried they are being picked apart and any flaw is being jumped on.

You will be damned either way the situation works out.

This is where we part company so to speak. A person has the right to be secure in their person, their travel, and their home. Warrants should not be given out just because you as an officer want one. Warrants should not be given out to gather evidence of a crime. If the officer does not know a crime has happened, they should not be allowed into a home to look for evidence of a crime. The system is badly broken, including the use of no knock warrants.

By the way, my home comments were directed at getting the wrong addresses.

[Secret Spuk]

This is where we part company so to speak. A person has the right to be secure in their person, their travel, and their home. Warrants should not be given out just because you as an officer want one. Warrants should not be given out to gather evidence of a crime. If the officer does not know a crime has happened, they should not be allowed into a home to look for evidence of a crime. The system is badly broken, including the use of no knock warrants.

By the way, my home comments were directed at getting the wrong addresses.

WOAH!!!!

The police dont get warrants because they want one... By constitutional law search warrants are issued only based on probable cause and by oath or affermation.

I've applied for and gotten search warrants... Here's the prociedure for a narcotics warrant.

I'd recieve information from an informant or through investigation of a location selling or storing illegal drugs.
1) Vet the location to see if any other agency or command is already investigating.
2) Make observations of the coming and goings at the location... These observations have to support the alligations. They must be done at three different time's of day. More observations are better.
3) In the case of an informant I would have the informant buy drugs, and possibly introduce an undercover officer to buy also.
4) I'd have to present the prepared case to the supervisor for review and recomendation for review by the D/A's office. (supervisory review)
5) Then I'd present the case to the D/A's office for review. An asst D/A will review the investigation and may sak for more observations, or demand another buy. Once the D/A pass in the investigation they will type up an application for a search warrant. (Legal review)
6) The application is then presented to a judge usually in chambers. The informant must testify to his observations, and information. Then I must testify under oath that my investigation is true and correct, and that all the steps I took are true. Then I must present evidence(in the case of an unregistered informant) that the informant is reliable, and has been reliable in the past, and that ihe information he provided was independantly verified by me as best I could. (Judicial review)

7) The day before, and day of were going to serve the warrant I must make observations that nothing substantial has changed about the location. An officer, or the informant must verify the address and make a physical mark to guide the controlled entry team. The controlled entry team may not have one of the investigators on it. This is the main reason for the physical mark. All of this is discussed at the TAC meeting just prior to the warrant service. The location is then veted again to insure there are no other agencies, or commands working the location.

8) Warrant get's served, evidence is siezed, arrests made.

9) Then I must return to the court and return the warrant. Usually in open court. Basically I have to let the court know when, how, and what the warrant resulted. If satisfied the judge will accept the return. Some times the judge will ask questions. Like what time was the service... he may have listed 5AM to 10PM on the warrant... If we didnt stay in those guidelines he may invalidate the warrant and all evidence siezed could become inadmissable.

whew!.... I didnt mean to run so long... But thats what I had to do to get a search warrant for a simple drug bust.

[BugDude]

Front page of the Tampa Tribune today a man was murdered in his own home when 4 men committed a home invasion yelling "Police" as they kicked in the door, robbed, then murdered him.

Being a law abiding citizen and carrying inside my own home 100% of the time, if someone busts through my door I will react in the manner in which I have trained. I certainly pray no one has the wrong address regardless of who they are. As me and the guys at work were discussing the story over lunch, I pity the fool that targets my home for forced entry while I am there.

[tacman605]

CTR. SS pretty much covered what I would have said search warrants are not given out just for kicks or because the officer wants one. The pupose of a "Search Warrant" is to search for something related to a crime and as long as the proper procedures are followed for obtaining them are 100% legal. No Knock warrants are not used for every single warrant and do have a purpose in life whether everyone likes it or not.

Bugdude. As I stated earlier bad guys will use whatever means they can. Yes it is screwed up that they imitate LE and gain entry. Yes it is screwed up someone imitates a cop on a traffic stop and rapes or murders somone but do we eliminate all warrants and traffic stops because of it? Not hardly. No one is argueing the fact that you do not have the right to defend yourself in your own home what is being said you would probably lose either way, either legally or by drawing on a legit tactical team coming through the door.

Rmember to guys this law, or what I got from the article, was this action is justified when the "public servant" is illegally in your home you can use force. The service of a legit search warrant or simply answering a call for service would not fit under the new law.

[GentlemanJim]

The back story to this legislation is the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a citizen had no right whatsoever to defend themselves against the police, even if the police were engaged in criminal activity and hiding behind their authority. If the legislation isn't perfect, oh well. The court should have thought through the ramifications of its ruling.

Jim

[BugDude]

CTR. SS pretty much covered what I would have said search warrants are not given out just for kicks or because the officer wants one. The pupose of a "Search Warrant" is to search for something related to a crime and as long as the proper procedures are followed for obtaining them are 100% legal. No Knock warrants are not used for every single warrant and do have a purpose in life whether everyone likes it or not.

Bugdude. As I stated earlier bad guys will use whatever means they can. Yes it is screwed up that they imitate LE and gain entry. Yes it is screwed up someone imitates a cop on a traffic stop and rapes or murders somone but do we eliminate all warrants and traffic stops because of it? Not hardly. No one is argueing the fact that you do not have the right to defend yourself in your own home what is being said you would probably lose either way, either legally or by drawing on a legit tactical team coming through the door.

Rmember to guys this law, or what I got from the article, was this action is justified when the "public servant" is illegally in your home you can use force. The service of a legit search warrant or simply answering a call for service would not fit under the new law.

You're right, it is a no win situation regardless of the circumstances. Either they put you down in your own home or you go down in court. Hindsight is always 20/20 and a DA will alanyze and criticize whatever you did after the fact. Unfortunately, BG count on this reality and choose to imitate counting on your hesitation. So, if it really is the police, you lose one way or the other. If it is BG imitating police and you hesitate, you lose. Pretty crappy situation for the honest joe sitting at home legally minding his own business.

[ksholder]

Is there a cite for this? Not the administrative kind of stuff like bank accounts and phone records, but the implied they can kick in your door with a search warrant they signed themselves (the substance of this thread).

Thanks.

Chad Rogers, you are right. The provisions of the Patriot act allow federal agents to get info about you, on their own signature, from almost any commercial establishment under certain circumstances. Following is a history from FISA through today. It is only a matter of time, unless Congress changes course, before the feds can enter your house on their own signature, but we are not there yet…

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1977, unconstitutionally changed the probable cause of criminality requirement to probable cause of employment by a foreign government, hostile or friendly. But even FISA respects constitutional liberty, since it prohibits prosecutions based on evidence obtained from these warrants.

In 1978, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, for the first time in American history, let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions. Just like FISA, it recognized the unconstitutional nature of evidence obtained by a self-written search warrant, and banned the use of such evidence in criminal prosecutions.

In 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allowed federal agents to serve self-written search warrants on collectors of digital financial data, but continued to recognize that evidence thus obtained was constitutionally incompetent for criminal prosecution purposes.

On October 15, 2001, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. With minimal floor debate in the Senate and no floor debate in the House (House members were given only 30 minutes to read the 315 page bill), Congress enacted this most unpatriotic rejection of privacy and constitutional guarantees. Together with its offspring the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004 and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, the Patriot Act not only permits the execution of self-written search warrants on a host of new subjects, it rejects the no-criminal-prosecution protections of its predecessors by requiring evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be turned over to prosecutors and mandating that such evidence is constitutionally competent in criminal prosecutions.

Currently under the Patriot Act, in some cases, federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, can obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you.

Oh, yeah, did you hear about the case where the feds wanted to jail a 86 year old librarian because she handed a self-written warrant to her 76 year old assistant? Think I am lying – check it out - Daily Kos: Armed Tea Partiers Against Patriot Act Provision Which Prosecuted 86 Year Old

[Chad Rogers]

In an e-mail this morning:

NRA-ILA | Rumor Control: The Truth About Indiana SB 1

[Chad Rogers]

Chad Rogers, you are right. The provisions of the Patriot act allow federal agents to get info about you, on their own signature, from almost any commercial establishment under certain circumstances. Following is a history from FISA through today. It is only a matter of time, unless Congress changes course, before the feds can enter your house on their own signature, but we are not there yet…

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1977, unconstitutionally changed the probable cause of criminality requirement to probable cause of employment by a foreign government, hostile or friendly. But even FISA respects constitutional liberty, since it prohibits prosecutions based on evidence obtained from these warrants.

In 1978, the Right to Financial Privacy Act, for the first time in American history, let federal agents write their own search warrants, but limited the subjects of those warrants to financial institutions. Just like FISA, it recognized the unconstitutional nature of evidence obtained by a self-written search warrant, and banned the use of such evidence in criminal prosecutions.

In 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allowed federal agents to serve self-written search warrants on collectors of digital financial data, but continued to recognize that evidence thus obtained was constitutionally incompetent for criminal prosecution purposes.

On October 15, 2001, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. With minimal floor debate in the Senate and no floor debate in the House (House members were given only 30 minutes to read the 315 page bill), Congress enacted this most unpatriotic rejection of privacy and constitutional guarantees. Together with its offspring the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004 and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, the Patriot Act not only permits the execution of self-written search warrants on a host of new subjects, it rejects the no-criminal-prosecution protections of its predecessors by requiring evidence obtained contrary to the Fourth Amendment to be turned over to prosecutors and mandating that such evidence is constitutionally competent in criminal prosecutions.

Currently under the Patriot Act, in some cases, federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, can obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you.

Oh, yeah, did you hear about the case where the feds wanted to jail a 86 year old librarian because she handed a self-written warrant to her 76 year old assistant? Think I am lying – check it out - Daily Kos: Armed Tea Partiers Against Patriot Act Provision Which Prosecuted 86 Year Old

So, in a nutshell, they cannot sign their own warrants for your house (the issue of the moment).

Thanks.

[mcgyver210]

The Bottom line is if LEO's never abused their "Extreme Powers IMO" Granted to them, laws to protect non LEO's from them wouldn't be needed in the first place. These laws & ones like them don't just pop-up because of one incident. They are needed after multiple incidents.

All of us both LEO & Non LEO can justify & argue our opinions which is OK but as it has been said many times before LEO's can & will do anything they want legal or illegal at that moment & your only protection is a reliable witness/electronic because their word is taken over yours otherwise.

As for me I will defend my home against an invasion from any unknown perceived threat if I die while doing that so be it. If that was to ever happen all involved better hope there is no such thing as ghost because I will take revenge if there is LOL I will not ever just assume a unknown break in is the Police same as I will not pull over for an unmarked patrol car in a possible dangerous situation until "911" verifies the car is real. Also the tactical gear worn on assaults is the same gear worn by criminals etc....

I know it is too late but No-Knock warrants are a disaster for both sides in reality & are definitely ABUSED....

[whoppo]

I hope it never happens to me because I have my .40 cal right beside me on the nightstand. They had better yell...COP...really loud and that may not be enough to cease aggression on my part.

Y'mean like these guys? St Petersburg Home Invasion: "Police!, Police! Police!"

[Reaperman357]

I'm former LE I promise I'll always fight back no matter what against anyone but I promise anyone who fires on a group of LEO's will 100% definitely end up dying of acute lead poisoning very quickly.

[Chevy-SS]

I'm former LE I promise I'll always fight back no matter what against anyone but I promise anyone who fires on a group of LEO's will 100% definitely end up dying of acute lead poisoning very quickly.

Yeah man, I agree, this is a logical and reasonable response - AND YOU HAVE ELEGANTLY ELUCIDATED WHY NO-KNOCK RAIDS SHOULD BE USED ONLY IN DIRE EMERGENCIES!!!!!!!!!!!!

-

[Crowman]

Rumor Control: The Truth About Indiana SB 1

You may have recently read some so-called "news" reports that there is a new law in Indiana that allows homeowners to legally shoot police officers if they believe the officers are unlawfully on their property. If you think this sounds too crazy to be true, rest assured, you’re right!
NRA-ILA | Rumor Control: The Truth About Indiana SB 1