Why didn’t they get a warrant before delivering the package? A cop can only use “exigent circumstances” as an excuse for a search when there is no practical way for a cop to obtain a warrant in timely fashion. What exactly was the difficulty with getting a warrant in this case (other than lack of evidence to justify same, perhaps)?

Actually, once the warrant was obtained, I’m not quite sure what would be the purpose of delivering the package anyway. Can you think of anything the cops might have hoped to accomplish by doing so?

This is not a house search. I still think it is an arrest in hot pursuit (of the package, even if they delivered it themselves) followed by a search of the house after the arrest for good measure.

A search of the house for good measure is not a house search?

i feel so much better!
seems they are aiming to render all god given rights “unnecessary”.

i believe eurotrash england tried to do the same thing back in 1776 didn’t it?

Tucker just pointed out that the cops may have actually picked the package up at the post office and delivered it themselves, but I don’t think that changes the cops’ defense–they followed the package into the house, so they didn’t need a warrant.

This is not a house search. I still think it is an arrest in hot pursuit (of the package, even if they delivered it themselves) followed by a search of the house after the arrest for good measure. I suspect the cops didn’t need a warrant. I’d be interested to hear someone knowledgeable on the subject speak up.

That aside, the cops have obviously bitten off more than they can chew, and I’m sure they are quite sorry they didn’t handle things differently now. I doubt they will end their violent raids (for everyone’s safety!) altogether, but at least they will lay low for awhile.

After that they should be prosecuted for robbery.

“If cops continue to play at being an army of occupation, they should expect the subjects to play their role in return. Vive la resistance.”

- J. D. Tucille

This is what happens when you declare a “war” on crime, the police start treating citizens as the enemy.

What were the cops searching for that couldn’t wait for a warrant? And what probable cause did they have to believe they would find anything other than the package they already had?

Mebbe this starts something….

It’s my understanding that the cops intercepted the package at the post office and delivered it to Calvo themselves.

1.) No Knock warrants should be illegal. They not only violate the 4th Amendment, IMO, but they put everyone, citizens and police alike, at risk.

2.) States should make it a statutory requirement that SWAT raids be video taped, like interrogations in my home state of IL.

3.) Citizens need to make themselves aware that law enforcement is not playing by the rules these days. Invest in camcorders and cell phones that can record video if you live in a “high intensity” drug trafficking area, because you might get sucked into this shit for no reason. Remember, you have the right to film police and other government officials.

4.) If you get jacked up for no good reason or otherwise abused, make two phone calls. One to the P.D., and another to the media outlet of your choice. Internal Affairs bureaus can’t be trusted to do the job.

5.) The concept of mutual aid needs to be stressed more in our society. Neighborhood watches are great, but remember that the police can be criminals to. Whether its a burglar or a dirty narc, watch out for your neighbors.

For example, if the good Mayor had stolen a car and the police followed him to his house and watched him enter, they would not need a warrant to go arrest him.

Please don’t get me wrong–I think drugs should be 100% legal and regulated–but I don’t see the need for a warrant here.

Are there any lawyers in the house who know the right answer?

Per Article VI, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Government actions which violate the Constitution are not just illegal, but fundamentally illegitimate. A cop who engages in a no-knock raid without a no-knock warrant or exigent circumstances to justify such conduct is a robber. Evidence collected by robbers should not be admissible in court except against the robbers who collected it.

“That’s right, kids, you’re not getting a dog because your daddy shoots dogs.”