TheAgitator.com
Two More Isolated Incidents
Friday, July 18th, 2008After a "wrong-door" drug raid in Harlem led to the death of 57-year-old Alberta Spruill in 2003, New York City officials promised to implement reforms with respect to the use of confidential informants, and institute checks to verify that narcotics officers and SWAT teams were hitting the right residences.
But as civil rights attorney Joel Berger and I explained in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago, the city soon reneged, claiming that the promised reforms were merely discretionary, and could be revoked at will. Soon enough, stories of wrong-door raids began popping up in the newspapers again—and have since.
There were two more in the Bronx this week.
The NYPD is admitting it was wrong when officers broke down the doors of two apartments in the Bronx during a pair of misguided drug raids.
They found nothing, and it turns out both homeowners were innocent.
Officials say the apartments never should have been raided, and they admit the search warrants were based on lies from a confidential informant.
[...]
Police say that three separate times, the drugs from his alleged undercover buys were really drugs that were hidden under his clothing. Cops were fooled, and because of it, two local residents were traumatized.
[...]
On Saturday, when Eyewitness News began questioning cops about the story, they adamantly insisted there were undercover drug buys in both apartments.
[...]
Now, after repeated calls to the NYPD, their story has changed. They now tell Eyewitness News that they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were any undercover buys in the apartments, just a confidential informant who allegedly lied.
In a statement released Thursday afternoon, police say, "We’ve initiated an investigation which has resulted in the informant being arrested for possession of narcotics. The investigation is continuing regarding his conduct leading up to these two search warrants."
They also say surveillance video shows the informant, who was supposedly searched beforehand by cops, reaching into his undergarments three separate times, exchanging the cops’ money for hidden drugs, then allegedly walking out of the building.
Why didn’t they check the surveillance video before conducting the raids? And how thoroughly could they possibly have searched this informant if he was able to hide drugs in his clothing? Moreover, if they were this sloppy while using this informant, how do we know other cops in the city aren’t making similar mistakes with other informants? This particular informant has been the source of information for at least a dozen other drug raids.
Once again, the larger point here is that these raids are too violent and dangerous, the margin of error to small, and the tips and investigations that lead to them too subject to mistakes and bad information for them to be used on nonviolent drug offenders.
There is a part of me that wonders why more politicians aren’t speaking out against these tactics. You would figure that a politician would get a lot of praise from a community that is constantly terrorized by its police force through bad information and over zealousness. Innocent Americans are getting abused so violent criminals can get better treatment. Is there a John Stossel story about this?
I’ve asked that very same question here, Matt. The reasons I come up with why there aren’t are that 1) these stories really don’t get a lot of press, because I’d imagine the local papers and TV aren’t really interested in pissing off the cops, 2) people don’t really see this stuff as a threat to their person, even though that’s exactly what it is. They justify it by saying ‘oh, well, they were probably criminals anyway’ or ‘they’d never do that kind of thing here’. Well, people need to wake up, and realize that every two-bit town is getting its own SWAT team, and that this kind of major screwing up can happen anywhere. And if, heaven forbid, something goes wrong during a raid, someone’s life is going to be ruined. And the odds are good that it won’t be any of the cops, even though they CAUSE these situations in the first place.
So how about it, politicians? How about pandering to people who actually want to be SAFE in their homes from cops?
So when officers are known to lie to the press, can we assume that they are lying to the court?
“So when officers are known to lie to the press, can we assume that they are lying to the court?”
Is the bear Catholic? Is the pope a Nazi? I’m sorry, ex-Nazi. There. That better?
1 and 2,
There just isn’t enough measurable support for a politician to put his career on the line (yes, being an elected official is a career). Being seen as “tough on crime” can manifest a significant voting block. In order for there to be change, you would have to form a coalition capable of defeating the “tough on crime” coalition. Unfortunately, these types of things are seen as isolated incidents and because of that, lack support. We may be acutely aware of what is going on, but most people probably aren’t.
No solutions, just problems.
“No solutions, just problems.”
Which we “solve” by a)throwing money at them and/or b) killing them.
Way to go, Feddies. Way to go. ‘Ray.
What we need are politicians who are “tough” on the crime committed by police.
To legally enter a person’s dwelling in the absence of exigent circumstances, a cop must have a warrant which he reasonably believes was issued on the basis of sworn testimony regarding personal knowledge (by the person swearing) sufficient to convince a reasonable person that (1) a specific discernible crime was probably committed, and (2) the search would probably yield evidence of such crime. Additional requirements apply for “no-knock” warrants.
A cop who enters a dwelling for purposes of assaulting (threatening force against) occupants without a reasonable belief of justification as described above is a robber. There is no reason society should tolerate robbers in uniform.
uh oh.
The tone is all wrong.
I wonder what degree and duration of Post-Traumatic Stress someone suffers when the police suddenly and unexpectedly knock down their door; storm into the premises yelling obscenities and brandishing weapons; sticking loaded and cocked firearms into people’s faces; body-slamming them to the ground; roughly cuffing the suspect’s hands behind their backs; standing with a boot on the suspect’s neck; tearing their premises apart; threatening them with arrest; questioning them at the point of a gun; finally, gathering up their personnel, and leaving the premises in a physical wreck, and the suspect in emotional wreck?
Just count themselves lucky that the police did not plant contraband?
“Just count themselves lucky that the police did not plant contraband?”
Remember, the Katherine Johnson case exists only due to the massive civil outcry and a CI that went to the press and got protection before the police ‘took care of the problem.’ I would expect that police do plant evidence in cases where they believe the target has it coming.
Which makes the NY Time article highly disturbing. The police tend to act more like a street gang then a professional constabulary.
“how thoroughly could they possibly have searched this informant if he was able to hide drugs in his clothing?” Due to the ridiculously tiny quantity of drugs required to “justify” breaking into someone’s home, I don’t expect the police can be sure an informant isn’t carrying drugs short of a strip search - including shining a light up his butt crack. And if they did that every time, there’d be almost no informants, and far fewer officers willing to work the narcotics squad.
Hey, I don’t see a problem with that…
The real problem is the sort of law they are trying to enforce. When crimes have victims, the cops don’t need to sneak around or make deals with known sleazebag criminals to discover when a law is being broken.