.jpg)
Should SWAT serve every warrant just in case?
Probably the worst reason to use a violent tactic that has a record of tragic unintended consequences is to invoke hypothetical justifications without actual evidence that overwhelming force is called for. That's why, even though Cottonwood, Arizona, Police Chief Jody Manning didn't create the controversy he's fielding, we still need to call him out over the excuses he's making for a recent SWAT raid that seems a stretch even for modern, militarized law enforcement.
On July 20 of this year, the SWAT team serving the Verde Valley -- a cluster of small communities in north-central Arizona -- was called out over allegations of child abuse against a Cottonwood business owner. The decision to bring in SWAT was made by a subordinate commander in Chief Fanning's absence. In the words of the police themselves, "[a]fter being notified of the search warrant through a public address system, all occupants exited the residence without incident," (a flash-bang grenade was used to stun a dog that remained inside).
After the incident, facing criticism, Chief Fanning reached pretty far afield for reasons why a raid made more sense than just knocking on the door.
"We would have rather used a SWAT team and give a wrong perception rather than ignore the potential threats," Fanning told the Verde Independent. In terms of specifics, Fanning said, "We were told he was a gun collector and enthusiast."
Apparently, the target of the raid, David Carl, owns two handguns and three long guns. That's not unusual in a state where, according to conservative estimates, 31% of households contain firearms (the national figure is about 40%, which makes the one-in-three figure sound suspiciously low for a piece of the old "Wild West"). That Carl's gun ownership wasn't actually considered all that threatening seems clear from the fact that they remain in his possession -- the police didn't take them.
Fanning added that Carl "has already made threats against other city employees during building inspections in the past." That certainly sounds bad -- and it's true that he's battling in court with planning officials over a sign and an occupancy permit. But if his past "threats" were concerning, they weren't sufficiently so to incur police attention until somebody needed to justify the use of a SWAT team.
But the most troubling rationale for the raid was Fanning's comment, "We didn't know if he had a safe house or fortress inside the building.We would rather be prepared than have a barricade."
Well ... true. Police, in fact, had no way of knowing that David Carl did not have a safe house or a fortress inside his building. They also had no way of knowing that he didn't have nukes, North Korean troops or an orbital death ray. But they also had no reason to suspect these things, either.
In fact, anybody might have fortified a home or office. Anybody might have stocked a safe room with weapons, ammunition and supplies to withstand a siege. You or your neighbors could be building bombs or stockpiling chemicals or conspiring with foreign agents to undermine the country.
But if government agents want to kick in your door, they need -- or should need -- more to go on than the danger you could represent if evil lurks in your mortal heart. Otherwise, every single warrant could be served by knocking the doors off the hinges and tossing flash-bang grenades into the room. Hell, if hypotheticals rule the day, forget the warrants and shake us all down on general principle.
Incidentally, I have no idea whether David Carl is guilty or innocent of the allegations against him. That's a separate matter from the tactics used in serving the warrant. And my occasional encounters with Cottonwood police have so far been positive, and the officers I've met have been professional ( I'm in Cottonwood almost every day).
But the use of violent and risky tactics that all too often result in injury and death for innocent people should require more than what-ifs that could encompass us all.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these:
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
"Otherwise, every single warrant could be served by knocking the doors off the hinges and tossing flash-bang grenades into the room. Hell, if hypotheticals rule the day, forget the warrants and shake us all down on general principle."- J.D.
That day is already here, J.D.
straightarrow says: That day is already here, J.D.
Yeah, for sure.
The courts have "discovered" so many "exceptions" to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement, that the notion that a warrant is required is laughable.
Couple that with the commonly untruthful probable cause conjured up by rogue cops for warrant applications-that are regularly rubber-stamped by magistrates-and the 4th Amendment merely makes a nice wall decoration...
It's interesting how our understanding of the 4th has evolved. During the revolution the the British had "writs of assistance" which served as search warrants. These writs were very general and non specific. There was controversy over these when they began to be issued by the courts in British America around 1760. The 4th Amendment, (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.), was inspired by that controversy. The idea was that you must have a warrant, but in order to get one you must have probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation. Properly understood, that's probable cause AND a warrant, not either or.
I understand that if one believes there might be someone in eminent danger it's worth the risk of trespassing, but you better be 100% right and ready to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions if you're not. That's YOU, personally, not the taxpayers.
I've come to the point in my life where I no longer believe that the police have the right to enter my home without my voluntary, uncoerced permission, even if some self important cross-dresser signs a piece of paper that says they do.
The bottom line is, if you break into my home and cause any damage, injury or death, cop or not, warrant or not, I'm going to hold you personally responsible for your actions regardless of what any courts or judges say. It's going to be you and me, bubba, and restitution will be made one way or another. I understand, that attitude will probably just get me shot, but I'll go out with a clear conscience and the knowledge that I died fighting for equal rights and justice.
Welcome to the United Police States of America, land of safety and coziness, where your state of slumber/slavery grants you the inaliable freedom to experience the American Dream.
What's sickening about this is after talking to witnesses I've found that most of the police report was fabricated. Cottonwood PD should be investigated over this and I hope the Carl family sues. It's not the first time nor the last Cottonwood's government has used its police force to attack its citizens after making up an excuse. Mr. Carl had been proving his so called zoning violation case against the city so they went after him in another way.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!