The best database(s) in the world is worthless if the people who are supposed to use it are untrained, incompetent, corrupt, or some combination of the three. So while I trust your expertise that it technically can be done, I do not believe it can be done as a practical matter in most government organizations (and that’s even if you assume no active opposition).

The raid on Ryan Frederick’s was carried out by the Special Investigations (drug) Unit. SWAT was only called out after Frederick was in custody.

All forced entry search warrants should be fully transparent public record.

What is it the filth and their apologists are always telling us? “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.”

What about a Presidential directive?

http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-hopefully-on-police-reckless.html

It’s worse than that. Those are phrases used by totalitarian anarchists to justify policies that favor real criminals and promote chaos (which can then be used as a basis to escalate the policies that are causing problems in the first place).

Good people should insist upon law and order. Law and order are not served, however, by allowing government agents to flout the law in the name of ‘enforcing’ it.

It used to be that peace officers and rev’nooers were regarded as having separate jobs. We need to return to those days.

““““““““““““““““
And as we alll know, the police officers’ lives are much more important and valuable than any of us inconsequential non LE citizens.
I am glad that MD is making a move on this legislation but after the devastating Ryan Frederick verdict and because of a botched SWAT situation that a loved one of mine has been a victim of, I am losing hope that anything will get better…..I just might want to look for another country to call home. :(

In cases where a raid resulted in no charges, the warrants are actually often thrown out.

I hate to point out the obvious, but as someone to whom this was news, this is absolutely outrageous. If I read that correctly, the implication is that there is a deliberate policy of destroying records of law enforcement’s actions in the cases when it is most likely to have screwed up. That’s when records are most important.

I’m sorry – because I really do like to think that most law enforcement is at least well-intended – but purging, the official documentation of actions known to be embarrassing absolutely reeks of corruption. I would love to hear a LE representative justify this obscene policy.

You nailed it.

I think what has been the most disappointing thing for me over the years is how the notion of personal responsibility has been denigrated on both the (conventional) left and right. The conventional left is willing to excuse any failure or evil committed by those they deem “victims”; the conventional right is willing to excuse any failure or evil committed in the name of “morality” or “order.”

I think there is hope: I look at the fact that a majority of the public apparently opposes both the bailout and the heavy-handed enforcement of the marijuana laws.

I think the internet has just begun to empower those opposed to such nonsense. In the past, the arguments for freedom were not part of the political discourse and no one challenged the right of those in government to make decisions for us.

Maybe I am over-optimistic, but giving up is not an option.

It must be individuals who accept responsibility for accountability of State agents, most effectively by eliminating them peacefully.

The means of this elimination is by refusing to cooperate with the State and instead cooperating, without force, with one another.

It is deeper than that. You must accept a deeper philosophy and understanding of morality than following whatever the law says you ought to do. You must also assert this in defense of your neighbor against the corrupt in the system. That means that if you are selected for a jury in the case of a man like Ryan Frederick, you lie your way onto the jury, play stupid and nullify.

I can’t speak for the secular Agitator readers, but as a Christian, I could sleep peacefully at night and stand before God feeling justified for doing that. Lying to protect your neighbor from the predation of evil men is always morally justified.

What will disappoint (but not surprise) me will be the politicians and so-called “tough on crime” types who will buy into the spurious reasons which will no doubt be put out to oppose transparency.

Tough on crime and law-and-order are usually code phrases for “the ends justify the means if it leaves me feeling safe.” To those of us who are actually conservative on justice and the rule of law, they are cretins who would gladly sacrifice the rule of law and the pursuit of justice to feel safe.

The Cell Phone Camera.

Why ELSE do the police now want Cell Phone JAMMERS??

Please permit me to disagree, Aresen.

There already is a moral requirement for modest accountability without the need for a legal requirement.

A legal requirement for modest accountability ignored is worse than no accountability because it destroys respect for and substance of law. It fosters chaos.

The root problem is not that there is no requirement for accountability, it is that individuals delegate to and accept State responsibility for holding its own agents accountable. This is an obvious paradox.

It must be individuals who accept responsibility for accountability of State agents, most effectively by eliminating them peacefully.

The means of this elimination is by refusing to cooperate with the State and instead cooperating, without force, with one another.

I wish people who favor law and order could somehow be made to realize that the totalitarian anarchists who infest government support neither law nor order. The totalitarian anarchists view violent criminals as friends and allies, at least as long as the criminals choose their targets properly. After all, if there weren’t any crime, the totalitarian anarchists wouldn’t be able to argue for increased powers to “fight” it.

IMHO, real SWAT teams pose less of a danger to people’s security than the use of semi-dynamic entry by non-SWAT teams. Legislators need to spell out, in plain terms, that

(1) Cops have a duty to minimize damage or risk to persons and property. While some damage or risk may be necessary or unavoidable, cops must offer a clear and logical justification for any significant damage or risk they impose.

(2) Upon the request of a person being prosecuted or sued by the state, jurors shall be instructed to determine whether a cops’ judgment regarding ‘necessary’ damage was reasonable. More precisely, they shall determine whether a reasonable person in the cops’ situation could have believed his actions would minimize risk and harm to persons and property. Searches that are not conducted in reasonable fashion shall be construed as unreasonable, and jurors shall be instructed not to construe any evidence resulting from them in any manner adverse to the person whose property was unreasonably searched.

(3) A cop or other state agent whose conduct in a search or seizure demonstrates wanton disregard for the duties in (1) shall be deemed to be a rogue cop acting without authority. Free people shall have the same right to resist the actions of a rogue cop as they would have to resist similar actions by any other typical person. If a typical person who performs a certain action would thereby forfeit the right of self-defense, a rogue cop who does likewise would similarly forfeit such right.

(4) If a person claims to have acted in self-defense against a rogue cop, the claim shall be accepted if either: (a) the cop was demonstrating wanton disregard for his duties in (1), or (b) the person could not have reasonably believed that the cop was not demonstrating wanton disregard for such duties.

(5) Rogue cops should be prosecuted for any actions which would not be legal if they were not cops.

(6) Cops who force entry into a dwelling without having first either made a bona fide effort to be admitted or establishing a solid reason not to make such effort shall be presumed to be acting with wanton disregard for their duties.

A bit long-winded perhaps, but the basic notion should be that if people want to be treated like peace officers, they need to act like peace officers.

It is when they are recklessly given free reign…in situations where they most certainly…should not be used…that these over the top…excessive force tragedies occur.

I visit my son…at his resting place…thanks to them…so I also know…pain…grief…and…injustice.

I understand the disbelief…and frustration…at what can be gotten away with…by them.

I admire Mr. Calvo…he is…a very decent human being…and knowing better now…what can happen…he is…taking the steps…to be a part of the solution. He has integrity. It is not easy to go up against law enforcement.

I pray that…Mr. Calvo is successful…in his endeavor…it is a start.

http://www.justiceforsal.com

It was widely recognized in the 19th century that many of the warrants in use today were unconstitutional, violating the 4th amendment. AND since the suspect is only a suspect, the government has an obligation NOT to cause any undue harm to the suspect’s reputation, property, or person until conviction occurs, meaning the warrant should be served with a minimum of fanfare. See Cooley on the Constitution for more.

Dominus providebit!