Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I haven't been following this real closely, just the last few days of the trial. In a nutshell, deputies conducted a drug raid at 0-dark-30, toss in a flash-bang device, and a shootout erupts. Suspect's girlfriend is caught in the middle and killed. I figured the suspect was a dead duck, but after hearing his impressive testimony at trial, I thought maybe he had something going for him.

Andrew Coffee IV found not guilty on all counts of murder, attempted first degree murder (wpbf.com)

"Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all counts of murder and attempted first degree murder Friday.

Coffee is accused of firing at Indian River County Sheriff's Deputies during an early morning drug raid at his home back in 2017."

He was convicted on felon firearms possession. Maybe there is an outbreak of reasonableness in juries on the horizon.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,409 Posts
The verdict does make sense in that he was not directly responsible for her death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The verdict does make sense in that he was not directly responsible for her death.
I cannot recall any reports saying whose gunfire killed her, just that he, being the suspect, was responsible for any deaths. Typically, targets of a raid come out on the short end of anything that happens, but I think there was a lot of he said, they said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
  • Like
Reactions: retired deputy

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: demanic

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,166 Posts
The Black guy gets a favorable verdict on the same day Rittenhouse got his, and nary a peep from the race-hustling panderers who claim the system is rigged with systemic racism.
My thoughts exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46,198 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
The Black guy gets a favorable verdict on the same day Rittenhouse got his, and nary a peep from the race-hustling panderers who claim the system is rigged with systemic racism.
All about agendas. All the pastors are tied up in WI and the Aubrey trial in ATL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Or an officer who intentionally falsifies the information to allow them to get a "no-knock" warrant...

There is no such thing as a "no-knock warrant"; specifically, all search warrants are order of the court requiring officers to conduct a search at a specific location to recover specific items reasonably believed to be there that will be probative is a criminal case. All search warrants must be served in a timely manner, subject to any specific orders of the authorizing judge (such as "daylight only", "during normal course of business", etc; but absent any specific restrictions by the issuing authority the warrant has no specific boundaries as to timing, announcement of intent, methods of entry, or otherwise.

So-called "no-knock" warrant service is a reference to a practice of service in a manner intended to minimize risk exposure to the subjects, others in the area, or the officers involved in serving the warrant.

Warrants are not pieces of paper kept in a file drawer and taken out when wanted or needed. Warrants are court orders issued by judges in courts of record based upon affidavits sworn to by competent parties alleging specific information about a criminal act and facts or circumstances which cause a reasonable person to believe that the specified items of evidence will be located by a search of the specified property.

Serving such court orders is a risky activity, but not one in which the officers involved have any choice. Knowing of the existence of the warrant, any sworn officer who fails to execute the warrant may be held in criminal contempt of court (typically punishable by incarceration without benefit of trial or bail privilege). Serving warrants during night-time hours can be a method of overcoming possible resistance by entering unannounced while people are sleeping or otherwise unlikely to engage in confrontation or resistance.

Risky business, for sure. Difficult decisions, certainly. Abuses occur without a doubt. But, condemning "no-knock" warrant service completely serves only to raise the levels of danger for the public officers involved and the neighborhood residents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
There is no such thing as a "no-knock warrant"; specifically, all search warrants are order of the court requiring officers to conduct a search at a specific location to recover specific items reasonably believed to be there that will be probative is a criminal case. All search warrants must be served in a timely manner, subject to any specific orders of the authorizing judge (such as "daylight only", "during normal course of business", etc; but absent any specific restrictions by the issuing authority the warrant has no specific boundaries as to timing, announcement of intent, methods of entry, or otherwise.

So-called "no-knock" warrant service is a reference to a practice of service in a manner intended to minimize risk exposure to the subjects, others in the area, or the officers involved in serving the warrant.

Warrants are not pieces of paper kept in a file drawer and taken out when wanted or needed. Warrants are court orders issued by judges in courts of record based upon affidavits sworn to by competent parties alleging specific information about a criminal act and facts or circumstances which cause a reasonable person to believe that the specified items of evidence will be located by a search of the specified property.

Serving such court orders is a risky activity, but not one in which the officers involved have any choice. Knowing of the existence of the warrant, any sworn officer who fails to execute the warrant may be held in criminal contempt of court (typically punishable by incarceration without benefit of trial or bail privilege). Serving warrants during night-time hours can be a method of overcoming possible resistance by entering unannounced while people are sleeping or otherwise unlikely to engage in confrontation or resistance.

Risky business, for sure. Difficult decisions, certainly. Abuses occur without a doubt. But, condemning "no-knock" warrant service completely serves only to raise the levels of danger for the public officers involved and the neighborhood residents.
Doing a quick web search, it would appear that the various sites returned disagree with you with respect to there being no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant...

If you break into someone's house, regardless of whether you are a LEO or just a normal criminal, you should expect to be greeted with deadly force... I don't see how that "minimizes risk exposure" to ANYONE...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Psycho41

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Doing a quick web search, it would appear that the various sites returned disagree with you with respect to there being no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant...

If you break into someone's house, regardless of whether you are a LEO or just a normal criminal, you should expect to be greeted with deadly force... I don't see how that "minimizes risk exposure" to ANYONE...
When the officers charged with service of a warrant have reason to believe that the subject(s) will resist in a violent manner if given any notice whatsoever, no-knock service may be a reasonable option. Take control over the premises and occupants as quickly as possible, avoiding the possibilities of barricaded subjects or hostage situations by overwhelming force without notice.

I'm not saying that this is the preferred method of doing business. In an ideal world an officer could politely knock or ring the bell, identify himself, display the court order, and proceed in an orderly and courteous manner. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in (or the world as it has ever existed with humans in occupancy).

Also unfortunately, too many law enforcement agencies and officers lean toward tactical solutions to everyday problems, rather than considering each situation carefully before deciding on explosive entry with body armor and other headline-worthy tactics of self-aggrandizement.

The point remains that "no-knock" is a reference to the tactics employed, not to a specific type of warrant. Judges issue warrants all the time (when supported by competent evidence and sworn testimony via affidavits), but the tactics of service are selected by the officers serving those warrants.

I remember a hard-charging district attorney accompanying us on warrant service a few times, but I never saw a black-robed judge on the scene of the events. As it should be, of course (judicial impartiality), but still a valid point to consider. Judges are ordering officers to perform a dangerous task, so some range of discretion must be provided so that officers remain willing to continue in public service; otherwise judges could issue warrants all day and all night and officers would ignore those orders out of enlightened self-interest.

Repeat: There is no such thing as a no-knock warrant, although there are warrants issued with specific instructions of the judicial authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,763 Posts
Repeat: There is no such thing as a no-knock warrant, although there are warrants issued with specific instructions of the judicial authority.
Quote from a DOJ Bulletin dated 2002, entitled "Authority of Federal Judges and Magistrates to Issue “No-Knock” Warrants: Federal judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue “no-knock” warrant

"Federal judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue "no-knock" warrants where circumstances justify a no-knock entry, and federal law enforcement officers may lawfully apply for such warrants under such circumstances. Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant."

So even though DOJ sometimes puts "no-knock" in quotes, it has been a commonly used term by DOJ for almost 20 years. If it is a term in common use and everyone involved knows what it means, it is legit. It means "A warrant with a pre-approval to enter without announcing." My state just passed a law that says "No law-enforcement officer shall seek, execute, or participate in the execution of a no-knock search warrant." So our state acknowledges that there were such a thing as no-knock warrants. So there is such a thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
Quote from a DOJ Bulletin dated 2002, entitled "Authority of Federal Judges and Magistrates to Issue “No-Knock” Warrants: Federal judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue “no-knock” warrant

"Federal judges and magistrates may lawfully and constitutionally issue "no-knock" warrants where circumstances justify a no-knock entry, and federal law enforcement officers may lawfully apply for such warrants under such circumstances. Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant."

So even though DOJ sometimes puts "no-knock" in quotes, it has been a commonly used term by DOJ for almost 20 years. If it is a term in common use and everyone involved knows what it means, it is legit. It means "A warrant with a pre-approval to enter without announcing." My state just passed a law that says "No law-enforcement officer shall seek, execute, or participate in the execution of a no-knock search warrant." So our state acknowledges that there were such a thing as no-knock warrants. So there is such a thing.
Hence "specific instructions of the judicial authority". Absent such specific instructions, officers must execute each warrant under the circumstances (including exigent circumstances) found or reasonably believed to exist.

A judge may issue a warrant (for arrest or for search and seizure) and that is an order of the court which must be complied with by any and all law enforcement personnel. Oddly enough, if the judge has issued a warrant based upon a fact situation lacking probable cause the judge himself is immune from liability, but the officers serving the warrant may be held liable for serving the warrant (assuming a prior knowledge of such lack of probable cause, and attorneys are very good at assuming just about anything).

We seem to be dancing on the head of a pin here. A warrant is a court order, and officers are required to execute any warrant of which they have knowledge, otherwise face civil or criminal contempt proceedings. Your state may limit the tactics used in warrant service via statutory requirements or limitations, but otherwise those tactics and methods are left to the discretion of the officers charged with the duty of service.

No public official should view a court order as anything other than a demand to perform a duty.

No search warrant grants carte blanche to commit mayhem. Every warrant service will be scrutinized for the purpose of ensuring that only reasonable and necessary actions are employed. Such oversight is necessary to prevent abuse of authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
I haven't been following this real closely, just the last few days of the trial. In a nutshell, deputies conducted a drug raid at 0-dark-30, toss in a flash-bang device, and a shootout erupts. Suspect's girlfriend is caught in the middle and killed. I figured the suspect was a dead duck, but after hearing his impressive testimony at trial, I thought maybe he had something going for him.

Andrew Coffee IV found not guilty on all counts of murder, attempted first degree murder (wpbf.com)

"Andrew Coffee was found not guilty on all counts of murder and attempted first degree murder Friday.

Coffee is accused of firing at Indian River County Sheriff's Deputies during an early morning drug raid at his home back in 2017."

He was convicted on felon firearms possession. Maybe there is an outbreak of reasonableness in juries on the horizon.
White privilege in action in our repressive regime … ohhhh … wait …
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top