US Marshal's Service...big 'oopsie'
- Thread starter Chuckman
- Start date
- Replies 264
- Views 7,318
Hellquest
Well-Known Member
Had a buddy get no knocked at the wrong address. Had all his guns taken, and cash along with other items. When they finally finished the court case he didn't get all his stuff back and had to sue the state. FYI he didn't win anything back.
And the officers were in plain clothes. SWAT showed up after they breach the door. He also had his kids taken till everything was cleared.
All because of a simple spelling mistake.
And the officers were in plain clothes. SWAT showed up after they breach the door. He also had his kids taken till everything was cleared.
All because of a simple spelling mistake.
This is an interesting one. There are several facets to it and questions it raises. Off the top of my head:
1) To what extent WITHOUT a warrant should any LE agency be allowed to perform ingress on a private residence.
a) Does a gate or other marking indicating that the home owner considers the property private and not "in obvious site" important
b) does going around the house, to back doors, looking windows, etc, in other words anything beyond that which a friendly neighbor would do exceed this limit?
2) What are the requirements to get a warrant? How should those requirements be defined, e.g. probable cause to believe X is hiding out at location Y versus X rented there 3 years ago and there is no known connection.
3) Several posts have commented as to their action being "knocking on the door". Do you believe surrounding the house to be knocking on the door (see above questions)
a) How does "covering the camera" play into this? In my view it demonstrates nefarious intent
4) What constitutes "identifying" anyone can yell the word "police" or wear a costume.
a) How does the homeowner verify this and to what extent do / should they have the right to verification before choosing whether or not they're legitimate
b) Looking at their attire and their actions, how would the proverbial reasonable person respond and what would they assume is happening?
1) How would this crowd see or handle things differently? While I believe it is safe to say we're "proverbial reasonable people" our views are very different than the average sheep
5) the so called "qualified immunity". Is this even right, as in justified? Often times, I go back to originalist thinking and colonial area justice norms and ask how they would have addressed it?
6) As @BatteryOaksBilly keeps asking, can someone with an LE background even understand, let alone voice, how someone outside of that profession would view this?
1) To what extent WITHOUT a warrant should any LE agency be allowed to perform ingress on a private residence.
a) Does a gate or other marking indicating that the home owner considers the property private and not "in obvious site" important
b) does going around the house, to back doors, looking windows, etc, in other words anything beyond that which a friendly neighbor would do exceed this limit?
2) What are the requirements to get a warrant? How should those requirements be defined, e.g. probable cause to believe X is hiding out at location Y versus X rented there 3 years ago and there is no known connection.
3) Several posts have commented as to their action being "knocking on the door". Do you believe surrounding the house to be knocking on the door (see above questions)
a) How does "covering the camera" play into this? In my view it demonstrates nefarious intent
4) What constitutes "identifying" anyone can yell the word "police" or wear a costume.
a) How does the homeowner verify this and to what extent do / should they have the right to verification before choosing whether or not they're legitimate
b) Looking at their attire and their actions, how would the proverbial reasonable person respond and what would they assume is happening?
1) How would this crowd see or handle things differently? While I believe it is safe to say we're "proverbial reasonable people" our views are very different than the average sheep
5) the so called "qualified immunity". Is this even right, as in justified? Often times, I go back to originalist thinking and colonial area justice norms and ask how they would have addressed it?
6) As @BatteryOaksBilly keeps asking, can someone with an LE background even understand, let alone voice, how someone outside of that profession would view this?
I completely agree that the Marshals' clothing is horrible. Their reason for being there does not seem to be. If you're looking for a murderer, armed savage, etc, and get a tip - what do you do with that?
Last edited:
Maybe I'm ATF/DEA/NSA/FBI or just a dangerous man.
Maybe I think that people shooting others with no actual threat might simply be a danger to others.
Take the emotion out of it, please. Serious question as it relates to NC statutes. My understanding is that the statute, prior to HB65 (? - that gave "castle doctrine") that the rule was you were permitted to shoot to PREVENT (unlawful) entry through the door. This raises two questions: One, what would the proverbial reasonable person think these folks were up to. Two, at what point would the proverbial reasonable person believe they're trying to (unlawfully) enter and hence be justified in firing. Remember according to the original statute, once they were inside, "duty to retreat" took hold again.
Wearing street hats except for one of the agents.
Sorry, it's a bit difficult to keep up. What question?
I'm not too sure what the 'civilian situation' is. Cops often go into back yards with their guns out. Sometimes looking for a bad guy who ran, or a fugitive on a tip. It's common. It's normal, everyday policework. If armed men where in MY Backyard dressed the way they were, I'd be ready for a fight. But their reason for being there is commonplace - and expected by the community they serve.
This is what so many just gloss over. Thugs for years have been disguised as the police. You would think that the police preach officer safety and going home to their familes would make all attempts to make it known, without a doubt as to who they are.
Yes, as well as a search of person or their property.
True, but in this case, they hadn't found the murderer, so moot point.
For someone who thinks I'm way off, you're going out of your way to say the same thing I am: no probable cause, and no warrant should mean no search.
Right, which is where you're acting on hypotheticals rather than a veritable probability.
That's a good question. I would think it could scare a reasonable person. That said no one tried to enter the residence. So a reasonable person would not be able to legally just start shooting. I do understand were it's possible with the world we live in right now a completely innocent person opening fire. That being said I simply don't think a reasonable response would be to simply start shooting. If it happens you would be charged and have to go to court. You probably would have an up hill battle. There was a recent case from texas (iirc) that turned out on the good side for the homeowner and I'm glad it did. But people need to understand that both sides are just doing what they can to be safe at the moment. This situation is total BS it was a knock and talk for a violent murder suspect.
Surveillance? Sit in cars, a neighbors house if they agree?
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
Well, see, there's a problem: contradictory information, they can't have it both ways. It still sounds like we're missing information.
Yep, most people who have information about murder suspects announce it publicly and include their name, address, and contact information; anonymous tips are just some fantasy from Hollywood.
Big time…typical media and possibly the media relations folks from the mashalls office.
Well how else do they get the reward money for the arrest and conviction? Bank dont take checks made out to Anonymous Jones
If by "people" you mean the citizens for whom these civil servants are in the employ of and by "us" you mean those same civil servants, then perhaps because of reasons like the following:
- Use of excessive force.
- Use of tactics designed to encourage the need for excessive force.
- Deliberately conspiring to prevent evidence of civil servant misconduct from coming to light.
- Support and use of civil asset forfeiture to steal people's money and property.
- Hiding behind Qualified Immunity for bullsh*t personal responsibility issues.
- In cases where civil servants and their organizations ARE held accountable in court and then making the citizens pay for their f*ckups out of their own taxes.
- Overuse of tactics such as no-knock warrants.
- Use of tactics such as those in this article where the civil servants are masked, armed and clearly not recognizable as law enforcement.
Being an armed civil servant empowered by the State to use deadly force in the enforcement of various laws means there's an inherent duty and responsibility to use that power and authority PROPERLY...legally, ethically, and morally.
It also requires limitations, checks, and balances on that power and authority.
Or maybe simply go knock and have people out back in case the person is in the house and runs out the back. Your TV tactics are super strong though.
Well, we can't really skirt the legal issues if we call it a search now, can we?
I'm glad we cleared up this little pedantic point about how they were just looking for, but legally definitely not searching for a suspect.
Last edited:
I'm not too sure what you mean. They are allowed to surround the house and knock on a door. This is not a search as far as Constitutional law goes.Well, we can't really skirt the legal issues if we call it a search now, can we?
And I'm allowed, as a 100% law abiding property owner, to assume that armed trespassers have bad intentions toward me. Can you not see how this could go wrong? or does that not enter into the thought process?
Last edited:
You really don't get it. They look nothing like cops no reasonable person would think they're cops. You wanna get all sides of a house do it with big flashing police cruisers. Have you learned nothing from the Breonna Taylor case?
OP
Chuckman
Senior Member
To be sure my issue isn't with the tactics, it's with the relationship between the LE and the homeowner. Knock on the door, let's chat. But skulking around my property without my okie doke? That's no bueno. And if you think you need to do that without having talked to me or corroborated info, therein lies the problem.