TheAgitator.com
Wrongly Raided by ATF
Tuesday, March 10th, 2009Here’s a first-hand account over at Metafilter.
Right now, I have no more details other than what’s in the post. The guy seems to want little more than an apology and explanation of what went wrong.
49 Responses to “Wrongly Raided by ATF”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Not cool at all, but in comparison to many of the raid stories you post, this one is almost excusable (Didn’t break anything, shoot any pets, apologized, and left).
Hey, I said, almost.
It’s amazing how posts about raids always turn up comments from people who have been raided. These people should be contacting the media to get the story out. Nothing will happen without press coverage.
what could’ve possible gone wrong?!!
I’m amazed that a couple of guys slumming in a low rent area didn’t have guns.
Wow! They didn’t even rough him up and arrest him for not being the guy they were after. The cops are getting soft.
Those officers did a good job. They didn’t hurt anyone, didn’t cause any property damage, and left the second they knew they were in the wrong place.
Sometimes police work is messy and sometimes you don’t find what you were looking for. There’s nothing wrong with what these officers did.
It’s really sad that my first though was similar to this (i.e. wow, no broken door and no dead pets. They were lucky). Granted, I don’t recall seeing reports of pets killed by federal LEOs, just local and state.
Against my better judgment I read all the comments to the story. While the majority of people were reasonable, I am still amazed at those who shrug off these armed and aggressive violations of liberty just because the goons happen to work for the government.
If they ever create a federal Department of Rape and Pillaging, you can be sure apologists will be ready and eager to justify the actions of the DRP.
Again, Shoot ANYONE who comes through your door uninvited!
Its the only way to stop these from happening!
> I don’t recall seeing reports of pets killed by federal LEOs, just local and state.
You need to get out more. Google “ATF kitten” without the quotes.
Again, Shoot ANYONE who comes through your door uninvited!
What if you invited them, but they didn’t RSVP? Should you still shoot them, or does that call for a tasing? Ask Sgt. Manners…
Mojotron,
To quote His Tomness, “You’re being glib”
#5, Dr Adamski,
Might you have different opinion, if you, as an innocent citizen, were handcuffed and set on your couch in your boxers? I would think this, type of encounter, could lead to PTSD symptoms. Mental affects of this raid, must be considered, too, before one would just shrug it off and let it go! What if little kids had been involved?
They did a good job, somewhat! I think it is sad that it is not a bad job, as long as no one was shot or killed!? Maybe they did a bad job, because they did not do enough investigation! They were just in, too much of, a hurry to play soldier or SWAT Team!
#5 | Dr Adamski-
you’ve set a low bar for ‘good job’.
While it’s good to know that the outcome wasn’t as bad as it could have been, I think we all know how easy it could have been for things to go the opposite way.
How many more seconds would it have been before they broke the door down if he hadn’t opened it so quickly? Amped up with adrenaline from breaking the door down, how much more violently would they have treated the victims? What charges would they have fabricated to justify it all?
What if the victim had decided to put some pants on first, or dared to ask for a warrant before allowing them in? What if he didn’t cooperate 100% with his captors? What kind of a lesson would they have tried to teach him?
The outcome may have been better than most, but the way the ATF agents approached the situation in the first place set the stage for a far worse result.
WARRANT people, they did not produce a WARRANT! Hey Dr. Adamski. Tell me. Did they need a warrant?
Yes. Yes they did.
Care to retract your analysis?
So, what exactly should happen here? They already apologized, and I think even most critics will agree that mistakes will happen. Should there be monetary compensation for the victum here? How much? Should the officers be disciplined? How harshly?
Here’s why I ask: I think we need to be careful not to create a negative incentive here. If the police actually get disciplined more harshly for an (presumably) honest mistake in which they didn’t do the bad things mentioned in many other posts, and less harshly when they trump up charges or use excessive violence (which often happens), then why would any officer ever show restraint? It isn’t so much setting the bar too low for the police as much as it is being careful not to move the bar around so much that you actually help contribute to the very thing you want to avoid.
In this case, I think a written sincere apology, and a nice gift card to Outback Steakhouse paid for by the Officers is reasonable.
Caveat: I am not minimizing the warrant issue, and obviously that is too big a problem for a steak to fix, assuming it is true.
pegr, I don’t know if they needed a warrant or not, and I don’t know if they had one. As far as I can tell, the story the guy tells lacks the relevant details. It sounds like they pounded on his door and he looked out his peephole and saw AFT agents out there with a battering ram. I think that, because of his (not unreasonable) conviction that his door was about to be busted down, he invited the agents in (or acquiesced to their request to be allowed in). I think you could argue that his consent was freely given, what with the presence of armed men pounding on his door, one of them holding a battering ram, but I’d hesitate to say there was a definite violation of Constitutional protections against unwarranted search. And if he didn’t ask to see a warrant, it’s not safe to assume they didn’t have one.
It sounds like they pounded on his door and he looked out his peephole and saw AFT agents out there with a battering ram. I think that, because of his (not unreasonable) conviction that his door was about to be busted down, he invited the agents in (or acquiesced to their request to be allowed in).
I am the guy in question, I saw my door was about to be busted in…opened (still in disbelief that cops are in my door) and they didnt ask if they could be let in or not, they immediately pointed guns in my direction, grabbed me and pushed me towards their direction (the hall outside of my apartment), pushed me towards a wall then handcuffed me
According to the article they did NOT apologize.
Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are WACO!
Oh and Parse, thanks. Next time I swing by and knock on your door as soon as its open I’m knocking you down, handcuffing you and heading to the kitchen to make a sandwhich (by the way do you have roast beef and dijon mustard?). After all you gave your consent freely.
Good luck with that.
Of course consent is meaningless in this situation. But who wants to place bets on which way the Supremes would call this one?
GiQ, assuming you are the OP at Metafilter, we have many questions for you, if you’ve got the time. Did they show you a warrant at any point? How long were they there before admitting a mistake and releasing you? Did they say why they were looking for the guy you had no association with? Did they look disappointed that you opened the door prior to them using the ram? If they had said they had a tip that you had marijuana in the apartment do you feel their actions would be justified?
I agree with nobahdi, he’d be better off suing their asses off and taking the money. Their words aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
Then again, money ain’t hardly worth the paper it’s printed on neither.
These agents were at least professional in what they did, didn’t mess things up, and promptly released the guys without harassing them the moment they realized the fugitive they were pursuing wasn’t there and they didn’t know him. Cases like this are a perfect of example of how even good police work can fail. I say leave these guys alone, as the public isn’t likely to be outraged over what appears to be both human error and an example of the police being professional and not hurting anyone or their property in the process.
#18 | Guy in question
I’ve seen similar scenarios happen. The general cop attitude is that ‘it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6′, so they disregard all laws and have an ‘us vs them’ mentality toward the public.
Being professional would have been doing the work that would have avoided the raid. That’s the point of the post at Metafilter. As an aside at least apologizing when making such a mistake would at least make the cops a bit less like douche bags.
You’re right that most of the public wont be outraged. Most will fall into two catagories,
1. Eh, so what didn’t happen to me.
2. Well, those two probably did something wrong anyways, so who cares.
Both indicate a lack of appreciation of the way that our freedoms are eroded away bit by bit in this horrible waste of resources we call the War on Drugs.
#17
“pegr, I don’t know if they needed a warrant or not ”
You don’t know? Then you’re probably on the wrong forum.
so they just said “thank you for your patience we did a mistake”
I took that as an apology, but I can see that it may not have been. I think we need more details. This may have been much worse, or not as bad as it sounds.
If that’s an apology it is a damn weak one. Thanks for sitting here, even though you had no choice because,
1. You are only wearing boxers,
2. You’re handcuffed.
3. We have guns and if you get up will shoot your.
Oh, and yeah wrong address. Bye. Uhhhmm, nice television, you mind if we kick your door on Super Bowl weekend? We’ll bring some beer.
What needs to happen is that the warrant process needs a major overhaul. No more rubber stamps. Warrants need to have some supporting evidence beyond “Crackhead A said …”, which means that some actual investigation will need to be done before kicking the door in.
Will that fix or prevent mistakes in “exigent circumstances”? No, but at least true emergency situations are rare.
One last thing, the screaming at handcuffed people really needs to stop.
I agree that the police were at least professional.
But, hey people, is that how low we have set the bar?? Professional behavior during the search is the minimum.
What about
1. a warrant
2. some reasonable research before hand
3. some sort of apology and restitution afterwards
pegr,
Don’t pay any attention to the negative comments. If you did not really know,that is the biggest reason, in the world, to be on the site! To learn more, about it!
Sorry,
My bad, My last comment should be addressed to parse (#17)! Not pegr!
The title of the post should be “erroneously raided.” Everything done by anyone in the BATFE, including drawing breath outside of prison, is automatically wrong.
I am totally against all no-knock warrants. However in this situation, if they had reliable information that a fugative was in that apartment, they may not have even needed a search warrant. Fugatives and related searches are treated differently under the law than regular searches. A reliable source could have said “Pooky still lives in apartment 3a”. No background research could contradict this unless they happened to find Pooky. I’m not saying its right, I’m just saying if this was a fugative task force looking for a specific fugative and had information from a reliable source, it was probably legal.
If it was totally legal, that fact might have saved the victims from further problems, if the ATF tried to justify a bad search by dropping drugs or weapons. I hate SWAT teams and tactical task forces, but this one seemed to be relatively restrained. I understand the frustration of the victims in this home invasion, but I don’t think they have much of a legal case based on the information in the article. Luckily for them the raid was not nearly as harmful as it could have been.
This website has just about ruined every action movie in existence for me.
Not saying that’s a bad thing.
Here’s why I ask: I think we need to be careful not to create a negative incentive here.
Agents who engage in wrongful searches which could and would have been avoided with reasonable should be fired from their jobs. Their incentive to avoid worse misbehavior should be the avoidance of being fired from a cannon into a brick wall.
Ivy League schools must not have high standards for writing.
Agents who engage in wrongful searches which could and would have been avoided with reasonable should be fired from their jobs. Their incentive to avoid worse misbehavior should be the avoidance of being fired from a cannon into a brick wall.
The end results of this one-strike-you’re-out rule: officers who made honest mistakes, but willl learn from them will no longer be employed, and the remaining dishonest officers will avoid the cannon by making the search “reasonable”.
As a matter of fact, I’m starting to wonder if this situation isn’t already in effect? That would explain a lot. Are police officers in general more at risk of relatively small mistakes being career-ending, while not being punished for blatantly corrupt behavior?
Chance
“As a matter of fact, I’m starting to wonder if this situation isn’t already in effect? That would explain a lot. Are police officers in general more at risk of relatively small mistakes being career-ending, while not being punished for blatantly corrupt behavior?”
I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case as well. I know for a fact that my father-in-law was either passed up for promotion or demoted a couple of times because he’d say something “insensitive” to hire-ups. Example: Pointing out that arresting blacks in a predominately black neighborhood is not racial profiling. So trying to be racially “friendly” (ie: only black cops arresting blacks) isn’t going to work when more than half of your police force is white.
Chance,
Shouldn’t it depend on the degree of the “honest mistake”. I don’t think anyone would argue that an officer who makes a minor procedural mistake should be dismissed. Think of in the context of a regular job. Most people wouldn’t get fired for sending a package via the USPS that should have been sent Fed-Ex, but they would if they made an accounting error that caused a huge tax penalty. There are some things that a person really needs to get right, on the first time. Making sure that you have the right residence before you bust in a start brutalizing the people who live there is one of them.
David, I think it is a bad thing to say we want behavior X, but then in practice reward Y. In your example, what I think we want to avoid is firing both the guy who caused the huge tax penalty and the guy who made the same mistake but there was no penalty incured. (This is an idealized example of course, assuming the person who made the smaller mistake is retrainable, and no pattern of misconduct/mistakes). Because I think if you fire both, the next guy you hire is either inexperienced (and therefore likely to make the same mistake) or has learned to cover his tracks better (”Not my name on that TPS report, must have been Earl”).
I’m not saying don’t get rid of the corrupt and the stupid. I’m saying that a one size fits all punishment scheme does not fix the systemic problem, and may even exacerbate it. I’m not an expert in organization or management science, so maybe my reasoning is flawed, but I wonder if the obvious solution here (firing and or prosecution) is perhaps not the best solution.
Part of the problem with this case is that it fits a grey area. I think its a stretch to say that this man has been brutalized, and by implication suggest all involved be fired, but clearly he was a victum and something should be done. Whether that something is that gift card I mentioned (only half jokingly) or retraining, or firing, or the cannon, I don’t know without more info.
Bzzzt!! Checking with the landlord would have said, “No, John and Robert live there, they moved in 3 months ago, Samuel “Pooky” Johnson still owes me 3 months back rent!”
How sad, the number of Americans ready to say “Since he wasn’t physically injured and his possessions were not destroyed, this really isn’t anything worth complaining about.” This country is turning into the pathetic abused wife who insists “My husband is a GOOD man! He only hits me when I deserve it.”
//I am totally against all no-knock warrants. However in this situation, if they had reliable information that a fugative was in that apartment, they may not have even needed a search warrant. Fugatives and related searches are treated differently under the law than regular searches.//
If a cop sees a fugitive enter an apartment, a cop need not get a warrant to follow. I am unaware of anything that would suggest any other “fugitive” exception in cases where the information about the fugitive’s presence is based on something other than the cop’s own personal observation. If fugitive searches did not generally require warrants, there would be no need for warrants to list the “persons” to be seized.
//The end results of this one-strike-you’re-out rule: officers who made honest mistakes, but willl learn from them will no longer be employed, and the remaining dishonest officers will avoid the cannon by making the search “reasonable”. //
It is possible to make honest mistakes even when one uses reasonable care. Such mistakes would not generally not be a basis for firing. As for dishonest cops making a search “reasonable”, I suppose that might be a risk, but to me your argument is akin to saying that police shouldn’t try to track down robbers, since a policy of pursuing robbers would encourage robbers to eliminate witnesses. Further, in many cases, there won’t really be much cops can do after the fact to make searches “reasonable” if they are scrutinized by honest examiners, particularly if cops who perjure themselves to obstruct the prosecution of their fellow cops will themselves be prosecuted severely.