that’s nice. What’s your response to Liberals? I doubt that your pity comment always shuts either liberal or conservatives up.

Can we please send every cop who utters the “if you have nothing to hide . . . ” line to Fourth Amendment reeducation camp?

Fuck that shit, straight to Gitmo.

The punitive motivation does not matter in and of itself for 4A based claims.

OK, I think I can get there (if it was reasonable to do something, it doesn’t matter if the reasonable reasons are why it was done)… but it SHOULD matter for cases where there was a violation, right?

So, in this case, when it was clear that the people would certainly let them in and comply with a warrant, would it not be that there was no reasonable case for the SWAT team?

For simplicity of discussion, let’s assume that there’s some kind of “smoking gun” evidence that the guy whose decision it was to send in SWAT did so for entirely punitive reasons (a recording of “Let’s bust his A– with the SWAT team – don’t NOBODY say no to us!” or something obvious like that), and further assume that it was very clear that there was no other justification for SWAT (“I will certainly not give you permission to search, but if you have a warrant, I will certainly comply” or something like that).

What are the remedies?

should have been:

–(IIIRC the police thought he was only a “fence” but the evidence of that was not terribly strong)–

FURTHER COMMENT:

I don’t remember if it was ever announced whether the video game console Peyton was playing on when he perished was one allegedly misappropriated, allegedly by Peyton’s alleged co-conspirators.

This is an interesting set of legal issues that is in the long, long process of being resolved. A lawyer is going to think about the Constitution first.

Is the punishment being doled out in retaliation against something the regcit said (possible 1A violation)?

Did the SWAT team do an essentially punitive confiscation of any guns (as they did in the recent Millender case) (Possible 2A violation)?

Did the punitive aspect extend the SWAT team’s stay beyond the time that was reasonably justified them being in there under all circumstances (possible 3A violation)?

Was it excessive force (4a violation)?

5A violation? 6A violation? There probably is no 7A violation.

Does it amount to cruel and unusual, or disproportionate, punishment (possible 8A violation)?

Is it punitive because they are illegal immigrants (possible 10A violation, although there is an obvious standing issue on this one)?

Is it because they are black or Hispanic (possible equal protection violation)? I think this may require the showing of a pattern of discrimination, which can make it difficult. On the other hand, with the right jury!

Due process violation under the 14th? Other types of due process violation?

I think these are most of the possible Constitutionally based claims. Then there is state constitutional law, state law and federal law.

Most of the foregoing types of claims have not really been legally tested in the context of a “punitive” SWAT raid. For example, while the taking of Augusta Millender’s rifle during a (probably punitive) police raid, SCOTUS recently decided that this may or may not be a 4A violation. I don’t think they touched, for example, whether there was 2A violation. I know they didn’t touch on whether there was an 8A violation, etc., etc. Law moves slow.

CUT TO THE CHASE

Of course, the big one is excessive force under 4a. A “punitive” SWAT raid. The punitive motivation does not matter in and of itself for 4A based claims. What has to happen for police liability (and/or other remedies) is that the punitive motivation must cause the policeman to do something that she is not justified in doing (even if her motivations had been pure). Which is a long way of saying that the punitive motivation does not matter. This is why, for example, the possible punitive motivation was not discussed in the Millender case (where the cops were looking for a bad man who had made the police look very, very, very bad). The fact that police were looking for a bad man was assumed to justify ultraviolence, as it would apparently have been justified if the police officers involved had been emotionless individuals. Under 4A based claims, the key thing is not what police think, but rather what they do.

A good case to think about is Peyton Strickland. Punitive SWAT raid killed him. The raid was based on a possible robbery (it looks like the “victim” may have been the one with the knife and there was some suggestion that he had agreed in advance to deliver the game console to the “robbers”) which Peyton may or may not have been indirectly involved with (that is, he may or may not have been one of the “robbers”). Despite the (laudable) efforts of ppl like Mr. Balko, the Strickland family (father a big shot civil lawyer) kept the matter hush hush and settled (fairly quickly) for somewhere upwards of $4million, with most of it going to charity IIRC. This is the kind of case where the law works. Great police deterent (don’t think it wasn’t just because you didn’t hear about the settlement). No windfall for random relative either. No expensive litigation and attendant windfall for litigation attys. When the law works well, this is how it works. Pity that most don’t get to see it.

Because the last time I let you pukes search my property a $50 bill and an ipod turned up missing from my center console. That’s why.

Or at least quote it back to them when they stomp the shit out of somebody for recording them?

Also, an electric utility that provides customer information to cops without a warrant should be civilly liable for violating customer privacy.

Hmmmmm, I think I misspelled something there.

Cops usually work with either the South Metro Drug Task Force or the North Metro DTF. Both are notoriously corrupt and can’t stand legal medical marijuana.

I had my six plants growing in my basement for my medical condition, and a neighbor or someone else went through my trash and found evidence of a grow. Empty nutrient bottles and dead marijuana leaves. South Metro showed up, warrant in hand, ‘reasonable suspicion of illegal cultivation’.

There were no issues, odor or otherwise, and no one ever came to investigate or question whether I was even a legit card holder. Just the task force with a dozen cars and even more officers. Thankfully the dogs escaped to the neighbors before they could be shot by the cops.

It’s part efficiency, part punishment, part fun.

Efficiency: it’s faster and easier to throw stuff on the ground (breaking it) to check if there’s a small bag of weed hidden behind them than picking up piles of plates one by one and placing them delicately on the counter.

Punishment: F***ing hippies and their dangerous drugs, we’ll teach them a lesson. …Whaddya mean, wrong house?

Fun: smashing things is a great way to evacuate stress, especially when you don’t have to pay for them.