No-knocked-up

[JollyRoger]

Georgia's top court rejected an argument Monday from two murder suspects who said they shouldn't face the death penalty because they didn't know the intruder they shot and killed was a police officer using a special warrant.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that state law does not require the suspect to have known whether the victim was a peace officer in order to face the death penalty.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Antron Dawayne Fair and Damon Antwon Jolly for the 2006 killing of Bibb County Sheriff's Deputy Joseph Whitehead. Whitehead was the first of nine undercover agents to raid a Macon home around 1 a.m. on March 23, 2006, using a special "no knock" warrant.

The decision is unlikely to change the way police use the warrants, which are intended to prevent suspects from getting rid of evidence and to protect officers from potentially violent suspects.

Lawyers for Fair and Jolly argued that they should not face capital punishment because they didn't know the intruders were police officers. State prosecutors, however, say the two knew they were firing at officers because those who entered immediately shouted who they were.

Georgia's no knock warrant policy has come under scrutiny in response to the death of 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, who was shot and killed in November 2006 by Atlanta police officers during a botched no-knock search for drugs in her northwest Atlanta home.

The disastrous raid led to a sweeping investigation of the Atlanta Police Department, forcing officials to tighten policies on the warrants. Two officers have pleaded guilty to state manslaughter and federal civil rights charges and a third was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for lying to investigators.

It's also drawn the interest of state lawmakers. The Georgia Senate has voted twice to make it more difficult for police to search a home without knocking, although both times the measure failed to pass the House.

Two Guys Unaware of the War on Drugs Battle Hymn/War on Christmas Carol - "Grandma Got Gunned Down By a No-Knock"



Gimme Back My Bullets or Gimme Three Steps or just Gimme Your Opinion.

 

[IglooDame]

"The Georgia Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that state law does not require the suspect to have known whether the victim was a peace officer in order to face the death penalty."

Sometimes the law is stupid.

 

[dutchfire]

Shoot first, ask questions later isn't the right policy anymore in Georgia?

 

[Kraznaya]

So what are the odds of this getting kicked upstairs?

 

[JollyRoger]

Shoot first, ask questions later isn't the right policy anymore in Georgia?

Only if you're lucky enough for the intruder to not be a cop. If this had been an intruder lying about being a cop, I don't think it would have been prosecuted at all and certainly would not been prosecuted as a death penalty case.

So what are the odds of this getting kicked upstairs?

It should be, but I don't think it will be. Since it is a death penalty case and the 2nd Amendment has been construed as an individual right (though not yet incorprated to the states), I think it would allow the Court to explore the intersection of the rights emanating from the 2nd Amendment (defense) with the fringe of legally allowable incursions on the 4th Amendment (no-knock warrants). Is the death penalty cruel an unusual when you are exercising your basic rights in response to very aggressive state action that works rights at the fringe of what is allowable before they are in violation of your 4th Amendment rights? It is one thing to lose out on having evidence excluded because of a no-knock warrant, but quite another to end up on death row because of your 2nd Amendment right-to-defense actions during a no-knock warrant.

 

[IglooDame]

So what are the odds of this getting kicked upstairs?

Vanishingly small, I would think. They're dealing with a state law so SCOTUS wouldn't have direct oversight, and I don't think there's any (US) constitutional question involved in it.

 

[Masquerouge]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you think the citizens should be armed, and can use lethal force to protect themselves against trespassers, then no-knocks warrants aren't exactly the brightest idea ever.

Sure, the police officer are going to shoot "police!", but how is the homeowner to know it's not an actual thief passing as a police officer?

 

[Mark1031]

If you don't do anything wrong you don't have to worry about the state breaking down your door at 2 in the morning and shooting you in bed. Sheesh what whinners Americans have become.

I assume you still need a court order for these warrents. If we combine this with FISA then the DOJ can just break down doors whenever they want, won't that be cool. Freedom baby.

 

[RedRalph]

Bizarre.... I just cannot see the logic here. It basically means if a burglar runs in and shouts "police", unless you know for 100% fact that he isnt a policeman, you have no right to defend yourself at all. It requires mind reading powers of the homeowner.

 

[Masquerouge]

Bizarre.... I just cannot see the logic here. It basically means if a burglar runs in and shouts "police", unless you know for 100% fact that he isnt a policeman, you have no right to defend yourself at all. It requires mind reading powers of the homeowner.

Totally agree. I don't think that's the last we've heard of that.

 

[GoodGame]

This would be an interesting situation if combined with Texas-style home defense laws.

Would bring new meaning to "suicide by cop".

 

[IglooDame]

I did a little more websearching, and found this link, the last couple lines of which are:

Fair and Jolly also contended that they were justified in opening fire on the officers because they thought they were being robbed, not the subject of a "no-knock" warrant.

The state's high court said the trial judge erred during pretrial hearings by not ruling on the issue of whether the two men were entitled to immunity from prosecution for that reason. The state Supreme Court directed the judge to decide that issue before the case goes to trial.

So it's entirely possible that "castle doctrine" will be successfully invoked and they'll go free, but in any case it should be the place where Castle Doctrine meets No-Knock Warrant.

 

[m4gill4]

So if I ever want to break in to a home in Georgia and murder everyone inside, I'll be sure to shout "POLICE" in order to render everyone in the home helpless.

 

[Masquerouge]

I did a little more websearching, and found this link, the last couple lines of which are:



So it's entirely possible that "castle doctrine" will be successfully invoked and they'll go free, but in any case it should be the place where Castle Doctrine meets No-Knock Warrant.

Yup. It's going to be interesting, to say the least.

 

[GinandTonic]

Castle doctrine is beide the point as if the intruders have guns then shooting them would generally constitute reasonable force.

 

[Elrohir]

I dunno. On the one hand, I understand why the police want no knock warrants - they don't want the suspects flushing the evidence down the toilet, or burning it, or whatever. But on the other, we can't know if they would have resisted if the police had knocked and shown identification before entering the house. It's entirely possible this whole situation could have been avoided if the police had done that. And as it is entirely reasonable that criminals could identify themselves as the police in order to subdue an armed civilian, I'm not so comfortable with this ruling. I'm kind of on the fence, though....

JR, what do you think? Clearly, you don't like this ruling much either; but what change do you think should be made to the law? Should no knock warrants be abolished?

 

[IglooDame]

A gentleman named Scalia has opined in writing about both no-knock warrants, and defense of one's home.

The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Pp. 3-7.

(c) The social costs to be weighed against deterrence are considerable here. In addition to the grave adverse consequence that excluding relevant incriminating evidence always entails--the risk of releasing dangerous criminals--imposing such a massive remedy would generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support. Another consequence would be police officers' refraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing, producing preventable violence against the officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in others. Next to these social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is "reasonable suspicion" that they exist.

The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
would fail constitutional muster.

 

[Evie]

Had a similar case in Quebec recently (you know, where we have no Castle Doctrine and no second ammendment).

Police rush into the house, owner take a few shots, one of the policemen fall dead. The shooter was found Not Guilty (of murder. They WERE planning to nail him on illegal ownership of firearms, though) because the way the police had broken in gave him no reason to assume "Police" and good reasons to assume "evil people"

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Bizarre.... I just cannot see the logic here. It basically means if a burglar runs in and shouts "police", unless you know for 100% fact that he isnt a policeman, you have no right to defend yourself at all. It requires mind reading powers of the homeowner.

Exactly. It's the policeman's fault for doing this, and the state's fault for allowing no-knock nonsense to be a part of its policy.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

If someone came barging into my house screaming and fighting I would respond with violence.