Enforcement Actions in Boston

[hey]

Lovely, so we're in agreement that laws are arbitrary and only as valid as the institutions that enforce them are diligent.

Also known as: how human civilization has functioned since always.

Sure?

[Nephlite]

@Niiro

Dunno how it's done where Jmc is but usually a warrant has a few stages:

1. Probable Cause / Evidence - Need some kind of proof that a crime was knowingly violated and that person needs to be arrested. Building a case in this instance like interviewing people, collecting evidence (fingerprints, DNA, etc.), talking to snitches or passing bucks on the street to open a few loose mouths to get you on the right track. Best example I can use is popping a low level mule and turning him to catch the dealer. Organize a buyback or a deal with surveillance and identifying the seller. Basically you have to prove this person did in fact commit -x- offense at this time etc. All of this can be initiated by a low level officer (i.e. doesn't necessarily need to be pushed up the chain of command or have a detective review the case to get it).

2. Take your case to the United States Attorney's Office. A screener (the human aspect of deciding weather or not the case is strong enough to pursue charges) will overlook the application for a warrant and sign off on it. A clerk will assign an NCIC number to the warrant and place that number on to the suspects file as ACTIVE.

3. Take it to a judge to sign off. I think the only time I ever had a judge actually review my warrant was for a child pornography case. The suspect was very well known and very rich so there's always that inkling in the back of everyone's mind that you probably shouldn't fuck with the rich and powerful. Most of the time they sign off on it and you swear it out. The screeners from the USAO take care of the leg work. The actual USAO doesn't even get involved a lot of times till you get your prisoner.

It's a bit different for executing a warrant for evidence. You could either: already have the evidence and ask for a search warrant to examine it (such as a locked box you suspect drugs or something is inside) or have very specific and reliable information that there are drugs/guns in an area.

Warrants are usually very broad unless there's not enough evidence to support a specific charge.

In reference to a search warrant. For example, you know Suspect-A buys drugs because you just locked him up for possession and he hints that he goes through an mutual party (Suspect-B) to obtain the drugs. That mutual party always delivers the goods in a sealed package that's handed off to him. Unknowingly possessing the drugs, Suspect-B cannot be charged with possession -unless- he had the knowledge that he possessed drugs. Proving that Suspect-B knew that he was in possession of drugs is hard, especially if the package is sealed and his prints aren't on the inside of it. Oh sure you can try to get a warrant for him because you suspect there's drugs in there but can you charge him with it if you can't prove he knowingly and willingly possessed the drugs? Intent is all the rage with the law and it usually applies here. Search warrants usually apply to the whole place you're searching and doesn't have limits (usually). They can be limited to the types of items you find but Inevitable Discovery and Plain View laws usually work in your favor with these. Looking for drugs and find a bunch of weapons where drugs can be stored? Get charged with the guns. Lawfully possess the guns but don't have evidence they're used in the commission of a crime (i.e. you have a gun, and a bag of weed, which are normally aggregating charges)? Guns can get thrown out as evidence.

Arrest warrants are different. Usually if you apply for an arrest warrant, it's not a huge operation like in Dallas SWAT where you break in the doors, rip the windows out and raid the house. 9 times out of 10 it just sits in a database till that person is ran for warrants during a stop. If the person is known, not a flight risk, not dangerous, etc. then you can give them an opportunity to turn themselves in before you go and get them. If they are dangerous or a flight risk, you execute immediately. Stuff like simple possession, simple assaults, low-level domestics would be non-priority warrants (first example). Then you have medium-level warrants such as aggravated or felony assaults, hit and run, misdemeanor drug dealing, domestics with children involved or sexual assaults. Those you hand off to the Department of Fugitive Apprehension who assigns a Warrant Officer Squad or a Bonds Agency to the warrant (Bonds Agency usually gets a capture fee). Then you have high-level warrants such as homicide, assault with intent to kill, felony drug dealing, etc. that require immediate execution. Usually you serve on a squad in conjunction with DFA or Emergency Response Team (our SWAT) and go get your person. If they skip out then the warrant is still good till the statute of limitations expires for the offense. Arrest warrants are limited to places where a person can reasonably conceal themselves (under a bed, in an attic, in a shed) and there must be reliable evidence a person is there for an arrest warrant. A suspect on the loose can conceal themselves in thousands of places in a house. You go to a house because a person you're chasing ran towards it. Doors locked. Who's to say the suspect wasn't smart enough to lock the door behind him when he found the front door unlocked? Happens ALL the time.

tldr (since I always novel my responses) If what hey is referring to when 3 people need to support the warrant, then yes if you count the officer(s) doing the investigation, the USAO to support the warrant, then the judge to sign it. If he doesn't mean that then no it only takes one person to support the warrant (the USAO). The judge just signs it so I don't count him.

[Nephlite]

Magistrates in DC actually do provide 24/7 service, up to and including waking one up at stupid-o-clock to get a warrant vetted. It's expected. Virginia does so as well.

I meant to say they aren't going to be available 24/7 for low level crap. In my experience (can't say across the board, might just be me) I haven't been able to wake up someone for anything under a felony.

Just have to say, as a political science undergrad, this thread is fascinating. To clarify on Ksandra's point (regarding an earlier post by Nephlite), though...

Or the state will pay you

Don't think for a moment this works in practice. I rent from a parent while in college and SWAT raided my house with a fundamentally flawed warrant (no-knock) that was signed less than 2 hours before the raid. They were looking for "handguns, sawed-off shotguns, AK-47." Their only cited reason? The videotaped word of a criminal (which no, you don't get to see) who was probably cooperating out of self-interest.

They throw a flash grenade into the front hall (thank god my dad's oxygen tanks were no longer there, or the whole block would've been at risk), burst in, threw us on the ground (and held us at gunpoint), then tore the house apart while making insulting comments like "DONDE ESTA LAS DRUGES?" (ignoring the fact that the warrant says they were looking for guns).

They demolished two windows which cost $125 to replace. Parent had to go to court and they still denied reimbursement. I also had to go to the emergency room because I was left in handcuffs long enough to cause semi-permanent damage (shoulders + I couldn't feel a few fingers for a few days). While this also involves very real cost, I'm on Medicaid, so the state had no choice but to pay for that.

tl;dr: State ain't gotta reimburse shit in practice. While there are instances where a strong police force is universally accepted as a good idea, there's no denying that their militarization since 9/11 (and even before) has turned much of them into scum, especially where police and the courts intertwine. They're mostly made up of Marine rejects who still want to pretend they're a soldier in a real-life FPS. And remember, a soldier's job is to kill perceived enemies.

You gave up too easily. Not gonna lie, state insurance and risk management agencies for governments are sharks. They'll test every loophole, every niche' every damn law on the books to make sure you don't get paid. They'll continue a case for years till you give up. They'll make sure all your assets are damn near 0 before giving you one shred of hope that they'll settle and once they do, the settlement will be so astronomically low and you'll be so broke that you'll take it because you need it so badly. To them, poverty means they pass the buck and their best interest in these cases is to either settle very quickly to shut you up or completely destroy your life so you drop the case. Only well-to-do people who can afford to loose their jobs ever come out of these situations on top. It sucks royally to work for these types of people but government public safety is a business, not a service. Why do you think a lot of smaller towns are moving away from paid public safety? Too much cost at the expense of peoples lives and a system that's backlogged in arbitration for years.

I'm going to ignore the shot about the armed forces since, as traditional and lame as it sounds, criminals are getting more tactical, smarter, better armed, and better equipped than most military forces, so should the tactics and weapons of the people sworn to protect the civilian world evolve to meet the threat. Who better than someone who's already been trained in that type of environment? Better yet, make it mandatory so you don't have to be prior-military to get military trained.

[Niiro]

Much thanks for the detail. It's interesting to hear that the judge's part in the process isn't primarily to, well, judge the validity of the warrant.

Is their signing off on it largely just a procedural measure to make sure everything was done above the board?

[Nephlite]

It really doesn't take much to get the warrant and I think if they do just a quick glance at the worksheet the screeners use (summary of the charges/PC) they trust their judgement. It's like a delegation process to help with the overflow. Serious cases like homicide I'm sure they look at those more closely but in their eyes they aren't the ones seeking charges, it's the USAO. I've seen them before they started this process. Hundreds of officers from every agency in the city waiting to get their warrant looked at. Now you can just run up there and have your warrant in minutes. Or call/fax it in priority to have it signed and given back to you. Most of the time you'll have a prosecutor or an assistant on conference or on scene with you to push it. They trust their officers and staff with trying to do everything they can. Of course this sets you up for more clerical errors but it's rare.

[archibaldcrane]

A judge would never grant a warrant for every building in a multi-block area, right? Even in this extreme circumstance?

[Nephlite]

Hard to say. On one hand you have Fresh Pursuit and Exigent Circumstance rules coming in to play. On the other hand, if someone slammed a door in your face or said "No" and closed the door on you, you have to think about what some people have said before. Police Officers always think about the worst case scenario in these instances (hostage situations, other factors including trying to hide someone or something). Is it reasonable for them to think this way and go in anyways given the circumstances? It's a never ending cycle of "what if".

I asked a buddy of mine who teaches at the academy about this. He quoted a term he heard during a trial once where some evidence was being suppressed by the defense. The evidence was some drugs found in the trunk of a car when the initial call was for child endangerment. More specifically the caller advised there was a child locked in the trunk of the vehicle. The police stopped the vehicle and asked the driver for consent to search the trunk of the car and he refused, which is your right under normal circumstances and normally the police can't do anything about it. The officer asked for advise from an official who told him to detain the driver and search the trunk anyways. When they popped the trunk, there was no child but there were bags of weed in the trunk in plain view (didn't have to dig for it or anything). They ended up arresting him for possession and he fought the charges. The lawyer said that the drugs should have been suppressed and excluded because they didn't have a warrant to search the trunk.

The judge ended up ruling in favor of the prosecution because he said the officers took action on an incident where a warrant would have normally been issued to search the trunk of the vehicle due to the nature of the call. However, due to the extreme circumstances of the incident, waiting for a warrant to be issued when a persons life was potentially in danger was not reasonable and their evidence fell under Inevitable Discovery laws in the jurisdiction. The witness to the incident turned out to be a credible source and had no affiliation with the driver (turned out to be a retired police officer).

I use this as an example because under normal circumstances, yes a person can refuse to let the police in their house and the police can't do anything about it. If someone refused and they went in the house anyway, who's to say the police couldn't write up a quickie warrant to search the property on the basis that a credible witness (law enforcement) placed the suspect in the general area during his flight from officers? They didn't specifically see the suspect go in to said house, but he could potentially be there based upon the extreme circumstances surrounding his flight. It's hard to say how far exactly the scope of the search could have been. Might have been too much for one person to make that call.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

A judge would never grant a warrant for every building in a multi-block area, right? Even in this extreme circumstance?

That was an interesting hypo in law school. The answer to your question is, i think we wont know until it happens. The hypo in law school was: you can prove with 100% certainry theres a nuke in NY, thus PC, but donr know at all where. Could u get a warrant to search NY?

[shepardG]

Nukes easy to find without disrupting people's every day life.

[Eurell]

Nukes easy to find without disrupting people's every day life.

Unless its a snuke in a snizz

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...4_24layout.jpg

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Nukes easy to find without disrupting people's every day life.

Yea, was just thinking of multi-block area scenario.

[Buffy]

Excuse me if I missed this, but why do the cops even have to search every house. Can they not take the homeowner's word that the suspect is not inside the domicile?

Apparently, where Zeb lives, people don't lie.

[archibaldcrane]

Apparently, where Zeb lives, people don't lie.

Well, to be fair, the cops don't have any specific information indicating he's in that house either.

[Zeb]

I just think about how I would handle it if I was in charge. You know the FBI had been on the case and should have a list of possible sympathizers in the area. Friends/relatives/local activists(dirty muslims) whatever. Those places would be priority, then the door to door. If the homeowner refuses to cooperative, have one of the cops keep on eye on the place. There aren't going to be that many people refusing. I don't think it would be that big of a hassle. While a cop is watching the place where the search was refused, someone can run a background check on them to double check to make sure there aren't any red flags. Get a warrant if it comes up suspicious. Someone said something a few pages back about trusting hundreds of cops intuition...Yes. They use it every fucking day. "Hmm, this dude refused to let us come in. He looks like a stoner, probably just has a grow room. Nothing to see here." or "Dude is giving me the creeper vibe, probably has a Debbie Gibson shrine he wants to keep hidden." How fucking hard is that? Privacy is something I hold very dear and I think everyone is entitled to it. It's not like the world would have ended if the kid got away either.

[Day]

Your life is probably something you hold very dear too, as well as your families. Some lunatic like this gets loose in your neighborhood, I have a feeling you'd be singing a different song.

You can't just take homeowners word because it is very fucking possible the perp could have their daughter at gunpoint in a closet down the hall.

This shit starts happening when a murderer isn't on the loose in a town and I'll rally right up with you guys.

[Eurell]

Someone said something a few pages back about trusting hundreds of cops intuition...Yes. They use it every fucking day. "Hmm, this dude refused to let us come in. He looks like a stoner, probably just has a grow room. Nothing to see here." or "Dude is giving me the creeper vibe, probably has a Debbie Gibson shrine he wants to keep hidden." How fucking hard is that?

Because looking like a stoner or creeper somehow means they can't also have the guy hiding somewhere on their property (whether they know it or not).

[archibaldcrane]

This shit starts happening when a murderer isn't on the loose in a town and I'll rally right up with you guys.

Is a murderer ever not on the loose in most towns?

[Day]

It must get tiring being so purposely obtuse.

[archibaldcrane]

I just think any time a police force is engaging in searches without a warrant, permission, or probable cause, the circumstances surrounding the event should be under the utmost scrutiny.

Is "a killer on the loose" enough? Not usually. I'm demanding specificity because this is a very nebulous area.

Make a better argument if you're sick of me poking holes in yours.

[Day]

Ok how about killer on the loose that's been chucking bombs to and fro and just got done with a shootout with some officers? I didn't want to have to get so specific because I"m sure there's more obtuseness/ridiculousness to follow a comment like that.

Comes down to common sense really. We can nitpick and cry about rights and freedoms but who exactly are you planning on calling when that fucker is loose in your hood?