How to serve a warrant: 1972 versus today

[MPH]

Criminals engaged in home invasions in a number of locales have made a habit of breaking in the doors while screaming they were the police. If I'm not doing anything illegal in my daily life and have no expectations of a no knock warrant being served on my home, I will react appropriately. Force will be met with force. If your compadres have made an error then it may well be their last.

That is what will be known as a Pyrrhic "win" for you.

 

[Denny347]

That is what will be known as a Pyrrhic "win" for you.

Yeah, we normally bring friends.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks for the illustration. Unfortunately, it doesn't address my question.

The thread is on the service of warrants. In 1972, we're told that such service meant *a* cop, maybe with a partner, going up and knocking on the door. (or, I suppose, a process server might be doing it) Today, the story tells us, the same warrant is served by the proverbial tank driving down the street, 9000 officers surrounding the house, the family dog being shot, etc., etc.

My question addressed the "wrong house" part of the equation: that is, if all of that force is brought to bear on 205 W Main and the perp lived at 502 E Main, according to conversations I've had with several officers here, that means LOTS of people screwed up very badly. If I'm the guy at 205 W Main, I don't want to see all of those people walk with any kind of immunity, any more than I would if I dropped a tube down Mrs. Flanagan's throat and stuck a big needle in the bone of her left leg when it was Mr. Flanagan who needed my help. I want to see every bloody one of them in court and I want to see them *personally* responsible: It's not the department's (and therefore, the citizens') responsibility to pay for my losses due to those individuals' incompetence.

Let me be absolutely clear on that last point: I am in no way saying "every officer is incompetent", I am saying that the hypothetical officers in my above example demonstrated what I would consider extreme negligence and incompetence in the performance of their duties.

Now, the above described situation is comparatively rare in the grand view of how many no-knocks there are wherein overwhelming force is brought to bear. (which I think is a problem because of how many no-knocks must happen for as many reports as we get to be a small percentage) The officers involved in that rare situation may indeed face the exact situation I suggested, where they are held liable for their actions. They may even be held *personally* liable: No FOP lawyers, no departmental protection, etc. However, if that does happen, I'm not aware of any cases where it has. Admittedly, I do not follow such things closely.

I don't expect anyone will stand by someone who screws up that badly.... But I wouldn't have expected any support at all for Harless, either, and yet not only were his fellow officers forced to give their personal time to him to continue to pay him while he was out, it's my understanding that his town, Canton, OH, was working to get him back on the force and on the street.

VitaminK, your example with "Gary" is a good example of where QI is a good thing for you guys. I completely agree that it's appropriate for those situations. If you're doing what you're supposed to do, you shouldn't have to worry about being hauled into court every other day to defend it, you should be out there doing your job hopefully as an example to others, both peer and future officers as well.

Is QI also applied to the example I hypothesized?

Blessings,
Bill

Qualified immunity protects officers from the 100's of lawsuits they'd receive each year if they didn't have it in place. You only get sued if you screw up. Cops get sued for doing the right thing more often than they get sued for doing the wrong thing. Here is an example of a recent case here in indy.

A cop is diligently patrolling his beat and sees a very bad individual whom he's locked up 20+ times before...we'll call him gary. Gary is attempting to break into a car that is not his own. Gary has a history of drug use and violence. The cop knows that gary doesn't own a car and knows that gary doesn't usually spontaneously do the robot while 1/2 naked in a parking lot, so the cop reasonably assumes that criminal activity is afoot. As the cop approaches gary, who has now successfully broken a car window, gary assumes a "kung fu" stance and starts barking. The two engage in a very odd fight that ends with gary in handcuffs. Medics are called as Gary's pupils are the size of saucers and again he's half naked. Gary goes to the hospital's jail for criminal mischief (breaking into a car) and resisting until he's detoxed then he moves to big boy jail.

No one hears this story though...what the news prints is this:

Westside man sues police for brutality after being beaten while having a medical issue. Cops see these bull**** lawsuits all the time...hell we all see them posted frequently on here. In this particular case they couldn't find the owner of the car...no victim/no crime. So that gets thrown out. The lawsuit leaves out all that information and says that a cop was going down the road sees a man, beats his ass, and calls for a medic because he needs to go to the hospital. The cop has qualified immunity as what he thought he was doing was right...and it was. That doesn't mean that the deep pocket doctrine wasn't in full effect. The man can (and did) still sue the department, however he couldn't sue the officer as an individual.

BTW there were 3 people on the scene and in the report. The cop, and 2 medics who said he needed to go to the hospital as whatever drug he was on was causing him to act crazy. The people who were listed in the lawsuit included the officer, his sgt, his lt, his capt, and the chief of police. The medics were never mentioned even though they were there, and 4 other people were mentioned even though they were not.

 

[j706]

Thanks for the illustration. Unfortunately, it doesn't address my question.

The thread is on the service of warrants. In 1972, we're told that such service meant *a* cop, maybe with a partner, going up and knocking on the door. (or, I suppose, a process server might be doing it) Today, the story tells us, the same warrant is served by the proverbial tank driving down the street, 9000 officers surrounding the house, the family dog being shot, etc., etc.

My question addressed the "wrong house" part of the equation: that is, if all of that force is brought to bear on 205 W Main and the perp lived at 502 E Main, according to conversations I've had with several officers here, that means LOTS of people screwed up very badly. If I'm the guy at 205 W Main, I don't want to see all of those people walk with any kind of immunity, any more than I would if I dropped a tube down Mrs. Flanagan's throat and stuck a big needle in the bone of her left leg when it was Mr. Flanagan who needed my help. I want to see every bloody one of them in court and I want to see them *personally* responsible: It's not the department's (and therefore, the citizens') responsibility to pay for my losses due to those individuals' incompetence.

Let me be absolutely clear on that last point: I am in no way saying "every officer is incompetent", I am saying that the hypothetical officers in my above example demonstrated what I would consider extreme negligence and incompetence in the performance of their duties.

Now, the above described situation is comparatively rare in the grand view of how many no-knocks there are wherein overwhelming force is brought to bear. (which I think is a problem because of how many no-knocks must happen for as many reports as we get to be a small percentage) The officers involved in that rare situation may indeed face the exact situation I suggested, where they are held liable for their actions. They may even be held *personally* liable: No FOP lawyers, no departmental protection, etc. However, if that does happen, I'm not aware of any cases where it has. Admittedly, I do not follow such things closely.

I don't expect anyone will stand by someone who screws up that badly.... But I wouldn't have expected any support at all for Harless, either, and yet not only were his fellow officers forced to give their personal time to him to continue to pay him while he was out, it's my understanding that his town, Canton, OH, was working to get him back on the force and on the street.

VitaminK, your example with "Gary" is a good example of where QI is a good thing for you guys. I completely agree that it's appropriate for those situations. If you're doing what you're supposed to do, you shouldn't have to worry about being hauled into court every other day to defend it, you should be out there doing your job hopefully as an example to others, both peer and future officers as well.

Is QI also applied to the example I hypothesized?

Blessings,
Bill

I have never heard of LE raiding the wrong house in real life. No place except on here or other places online. I just do not think it happens very often. There really is no excuse for it happening even though I hate posting it...you know Murphy's law. ( just my luck)

 

[jbombelli]

I have never heard of LE raiding the wrong house in real life. No place except on here or other places online. I just do not think it happens very often. There really is no excuse for it happening even though I hate posting it...you know Murphy's law. ( just my luck)

That didn't really answer any of the questions he posed, did it?

 

[Denny347]

Thanks for the illustration. Unfortunately, it doesn't address my question.

The thread is on the service of warrants. In 1972, we're told that such service meant *a* cop, maybe with a partner, going up and knocking on the door. (or, I suppose, a process server might be doing it) Today, the story tells us, the same warrant is served by the proverbial tank driving down the street, 9000 officers surrounding the house, the family dog being shot, etc., etc.

My question addressed the "wrong house" part of the equation: that is, if all of that force is brought to bear on 205 W Main and the perp lived at 502 E Main, according to conversations I've had with several officers here, that means LOTS of people screwed up very badly. If I'm the guy at 205 W Main, I don't want to see all of those people walk with any kind of immunity, any more than I would if I dropped a tube down Mrs. Flanagan's throat and stuck a big needle in the bone of her left leg when it was Mr. Flanagan who needed my help. I want to see every bloody one of them in court and I want to see them *personally* responsible: It's not the department's (and therefore, the citizens') responsibility to pay for my losses due to those individuals' incompetence.

Let me be absolutely clear on that last point: I am in no way saying "every officer is incompetent", I am saying that the hypothetical officers in my above example demonstrated what I would consider extreme negligence and incompetence in the performance of their duties.

Now, the above described situation is comparatively rare in the grand view of how many no-knocks there are wherein overwhelming force is brought to bear. (which I think is a problem because of how many no-knocks must happen for as many reports as we get to be a small percentage) The officers involved in that rare situation may indeed face the exact situation I suggested, where they are held liable for their actions. They may even be held *personally* liable: No FOP lawyers, no departmental protection, etc. However, if that does happen, I'm not aware of any cases where it has. Admittedly, I do not follow such things closely.

I don't expect anyone will stand by someone who screws up that badly.... But I wouldn't have expected any support at all for Harless, either, and yet not only were his fellow officers forced to give their personal time to him to continue to pay him while he was out, it's my understanding that his town, Canton, OH, was working to get him back on the force and on the street.

VitaminK, your example with "Gary" is a good example of where QI is a good thing for you guys. I completely agree that it's appropriate for those situations. If you're doing what you're supposed to do, you shouldn't have to worry about being hauled into court every other day to defend it, you should be out there doing your job hopefully as an example to others, both peer and future officers as well.

Is QI also applied to the example I hypothesized?

Blessings,
Bill

It kind of depends on WHERE the screw up took place. If the wrong address was on the warrant and the officers went by the information written in front of them, they are acting in good faith that the information is correct and not liable. If the address on the warrant was XYZ Street and they went to XXX Street, well, they are responsible.

 

[jbombelli]

It kind of depends on WHERE the screw up took place. If the wrong address was on the warrant and the officers went by the information written in front of them, they are acting in good faith that the information is correct and not liable. If the address on the warrant was XYZ Street and they went to XXX Street, well, they are responsible.

How does it work if the warrant was typed up properly, complete with the wrong address, because that's the information the police supplied when they went to obtain that warrant? I don't think you can provide bad information, act on that bad information, and then hide behind "oh... I was acting in good faith, it's not my fault the information was bad..."

 

[Denny347]

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/06/the-good-faith-doctrine.aspx

 

[Dead Duck]

God-faith exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FIFY

Now Push It

 

[Denny347]

FIFY

Now Push It

Uh, yeah....NO.

 

[wally05]

How does it work if the warrant was typed up properly, complete with the wrong address, because that's the information the police supplied when they went to obtain that warrant? I don't think you can provide bad information, act on that bad information, and then hide behind "oh... I was acting in good faith, it's not my fault the information was bad..."

Oh geez... just read up on the doctrine. I think this has been answered.

 

[jbombelli]

Oh geez... just read up on the doctrine. I think this has been answered.

Uh.... did you see my question was RIGHT BEFORE the post that linked to the Doctrine? Maybe learning to read threads and seeing what order the posts are in might help you in the future. I highly recommend it.

 

[wally05]

Uh.... did you see my question was RIGHT BEFORE the post that linked to the Doctrine? Maybe learning to read threads and seeing what order the posts are in might help you in the future. I highly recommend it.

Google is your friend.

 

[jbombelli]

Google is your friend.

I guess reading and understanding the order in which things are posted is beyond your ken. I asked a specific question of a specific poster because I wanted HIS opinion on the matter, not whatever I might find on Google. But I guess that sort of interaction is beyond your level of comprehension as well.

 

[Fargo]

Google is your friend.

Kinda, but not necessarily. Indiana has its own good-faith doctrine based upon Article I, Section 11 which is much more restrictive than the federal good faith doctrine which is (kind of) outlined in that link.

I doubt you are going to find any sort of complete analysis of Indiana good-faith doctrine available freely online. It is rather complex and sometimes it appears the Court of Appeals struggles to figure out what it means.

Plus, there is more than one "good faith exception". One has to do with the admissibility of evidence, the other with whether or not an officer/department may be held liable. The standards are different in both.

Best,

Joe

 

[jbombelli]

Kinda, but not necessarily. Indiana has its own good-faith doctrine based upon Article I, Section 11 which is much more restrictive than the federal good faith doctrine which is (kind of) outlined in that link.

I doubt you are going to find any sort of complete analysis of Indiana good-faith doctrine available freely online. It is rather complex and sometimes it appears the Court of Appeals struggles to figure out what it means.

Best,

Joe

Come on, Joe! Google is your friend!

 

[wally05]

I guess reading and understanding the order in which things are posted is beyond your ken. I asked a specific question of a specific poster because I wanted HIS opinion on the matter, not whatever I might find on Google. But I guess that sort of interaction is beyond your level of comprehension as well.

Haha, can you respond without personally insulting someone? Act like an adult.

 

[Fargo]

I guess reading and understanding the order in which things are posted is beyond your ken. I asked a specific question of a specific poster because I wanted HIS opinion on the matter, not whatever I might find on Google. But I guess that sort of interaction is beyond your level of comprehension as well.

When the defect in the warrant is the fault of the officer, not the judge; the good faith doctrine will generally not apply as the warrant they are relying on is based upon some sort of misrepresentation to the judge.

Judicial error can excuse an officer's mistake based on that error, not the other way around.

Best,

Joe

 

[Fargo]

Haha, can you respond without personally insulting someone? Act like an adult.

I find that kinda ironic since you are the one who started out with the condescending posts telling him to read an article which didn't answer his question...

 

[wally05]

When the defect in the warrant is the fault of the officer, not the judge; the good faith doctrine will generally not apply as the warrant they are relying on is based upon some sort of misrepresentation to the judge.

Judicial error can excuse an officer's mistake based on that error, not the other way around.

Best,

Joe

Good interpretation.