PDA

View Full Version : Where are our rights against search and seizure?



Serpo
2nd June 2011, 01:30 AM
Tuesday, April 26, 6 a.m. Everyone is asleep.

Those in the main part of the house are jolted awake by repeated shouting, loud banging and bell-ringing at the front door. “POLICE!” “WARRANT!”

Two small Vietnamese women in the front bedroom, barely a month in the country, frightened, confused, fearing for their lives, are thinking “robber” or “terrorist.” A young South American man, not understanding the words, thinking “emergency,” gets up and runs to open the front door.

“When I opened it, a policeman pushed me against the wall while he was handling a gun, he pointed (at) me and made me turn around and put my hands in my back,” the young man says.

Several officers, guns drawn, rush in. Other residents are collected and also handcuffed.

One resident attempts to explain that the two women in the front bedroom are not fluent in English. Ignoring what was said, or perhaps just not listening, several men force the locked door open.

“They pointed guns at us. Then they ordered us to put our hands up and checked us,” says one. “I was in fear of my life. I felt very cold and tired because I was two months pregnant.

“After that, both of us were handcuffed. They ordered me to sit on the floor. We were taken into the living room. At that moment I knew that those men around us were police. There were about eight or nine policemen.”

Though the officers are told he also was not fluent in English, a Vietnamese man in the back part of the house is punched several times on the back of the head, after he is face down on the floor, hands behind him. The entire house is ransacked.

Three days later, the pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage.

Is this a typical SWAT raid for drugs, undocumented immigrants or both, taking place in a “crime-ridden,” poverty-stricken area? No!

The incident described above occurred in a quiet, family-oriented neighborhood right here in Davis. Most residents of the house are either visiting international scholars or students, or American citizens who are students. No drug dealers. No “illegal immigrants.”

No one offering the slightest resistance, unless cowering in fear or closing a door for protection from an as-yet-unidentified police officer who is presumed to be a robber constitutes “resistance.” No one has been arrested or charged with any crime.

The raid was by seven to 12 federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of several agencies under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. The warrant, shown to only one of the residents after most of the search had been conducted, was not for drugs or “illegals,” or any persons, but for items and records that “might” contain reference to a specific website, images of child pornography, or evidence of distribution or transmission of such images across international borders, which explains why ICE is involved.

Signed the previous morning, the agents had two weeks to execute the warrant based on what I was led to believe involved an alleged transmission and/or website visit that occurred more than a year ago.

Only one of the current residents had lived there longer than seven months. All of that person’s computer-related devices along with other items were confiscated.

Incidentally, the first time that person saw the warrant was when they were handed it with an attached list of items confiscated (unverified by the owner) when the search was completed.

During the search, agents thought it “necessary” to damage another door with a battering ram, and demolish a solid core door, locked on the side they were on. No reference to this damage has been made to the me, owner of the house, either verbally or written, even though two agents spoke with me, outside the house, at the scene.

As the owner of the house, I have a list of questions, as do the residents.

In a situation where the alleged “inciting incident” for the warrant occurred more than a year ago, why wasn’t time taken to gather more information about who might be currently living in the house? I assume ICE has access to top-notch intelligence gathering.

As owner of the house, and living next door, I could have provided information about who was currently living there, for how long, and could have facilitated entry into the house.

Do the facts justify forced entry at gunpoint and the detainment by handcuffing of terrified, non-resisting, innocent-until-proven-guilty people? Do the facts justify the risk of people being shot and possibly killed?

Who pays for psychological counseling for severely traumatized people? Who pays for the damage to the house? Are these injuries and damage simply considered “collateral damage”?

Prior to the search, must the search warrant be shown to each person whose property is to be searched? Is it necessary to ascertain whether those affected by the search understand what is occurring?

If one’s property is seized, is one permitted to verify the list as accurate? If not, is accuracy verified by another agent? Are agents required to sign for confiscated property?

Due to the fact that the warrant does not mention people, does the forced detainment and/or the manner in which the search was conducted constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment which says in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated …”?

This callous use of abusive force by the ICE agents must be questioned and reviewed to help prevent needless violence and injuries to innocent persons in the future. Our democracy requires no less.

— Linda Clark is a Davis resident. She has filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, and sent copies to a variety of agencies and government officials. The chancellor’s office at UC Davis has been in contact with the San Francisco ICE Office of Professional Responsibility and the Vietnamese Consulate in San Francisco, Clark sayshttp://www-new.davisenterprise.com/home-page/featured-stories/where-are-our-rights-against-search-and-seizure/

Twisted Titan
2nd June 2011, 04:13 AM
IN THE BARREL OF A GUN AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO USE IT TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND FAMILY

NONE WILL BE AFFORDED BY ADREALINE JUNKIE SOCIOPATHS THAT NEED TO JUSTIFY THEIR PAYCHECKS

Awoke
2nd June 2011, 05:24 AM
Other Purple Lollypop Eaters are collected and also handcuffed.
.
.
One Purple Lollypop Eater attempts to explain that the two women in the front bedroom are not fluent in English.
.
.
Most Purple Lollypop Eaters of the house are either visiting international scholars or students
.
.

Linda Clark is a Davis Purple Lollypop Eater.

There are more instances of "resident" in the article. This is not a good place to be from a rights perspective. You might have several residences but only one domicile. If you have a domicile then you might be described as a domiciliary. "LOLLYPOP EATER" is a thing. "PURPLE" is something determined or identified.

Bad English or incomplete knowledge of who you are and where you are will get you in trouble every time.




Do you really think playing legalese with language would have stopped the NWO pigs from terrorizing the people in that house?

They don't care what you say, how you say it, what you write, how you write it, or how you beg. They are NWO bully thugs, granted authority by a NWO Oligarchial cabal, and provided with weapons and vehicles by the same cabal.
::)

iOWNme
2nd June 2011, 06:08 AM
Where are our rights against search and seizure?

Hopefully in your right hand. Or maybe next to your bed? Under your pillow? I always keep my Right loaded, in case i must Claim, Stand Upon and Defend said Right.

Dogman
2nd June 2011, 06:34 AM
Contrary to playing with words, YOU or your family, do have the right to sue their collective ass's off if they screw up. Wrong person/address, etc, etc, if it is a house. If it is a car and you refuse a search, they will (mostly) get a warrant to search for things unseen, But for what can be seen in the open, you have a snowballs chance in hell to stop them, no warrant is needed, and it will be legal in the present system being used. If the law wants to, they will!
:sarc:

gunDriller
2nd June 2011, 07:23 AM
certainly, it is at the interface between the General Public and the Police that Civil War 2 will unfold/ is unfolding. i.e., that is one of the Primary Fronts in Civil War 2.

but because it is widely dispersed & rarely covered by media, it's almost invisible. but it's there. another day, another hundred or thousand illegal entries - all across the US.

when was the switch flipped for these Thug assholes ? i would have to say, about the time of 9-11.

just the way the Talmud-worshippers wanted it. keep the Gentiles fighting each other so the Talmud-worshipperscan get away with more crimes.


it's important that the General Public prevails.

if it gets to the point where your recompense is "to sue", it's too late.

the Police State thugs have to be stopped at the perimeter before entry.

part of the trick is electing a county sheriff who thinks similarly.

cthulu
2nd June 2011, 09:34 AM
On the other hand if you rely upon STATUS and CONTRACT you might survive to see a little payback eventually. Consider carefully which method you would use because you are not immune.



So even you admit there is only a probability...what you say is just another fancy way of saying "run and live to fight another day".

Ponce
2nd June 2011, 09:45 AM
You can do this, you can do that, you can do the other......but.......nothing is really done till is finished.........
only if you are scared wil you do as they tell you and you will have to play "their" game whether you like it or not.

First post of the day..........good morning to one and all.

Santa
2nd June 2011, 10:17 AM
Palani... Halt sir, I'm a domiciliary, not a mere resident.

Cop... Well, excuuuuuse me, Mr. Domiciliary, if Ida only known you were a domiciliary,
I wouldn't a cracked your daughters skull wide open with the back of my assault rifle.
Now get your ass on the floor, asshole, before I knock your fuckin teeth out. ;D

madfranks
2nd June 2011, 12:21 PM
I don't think it was the people living in that house who wrote the OP article in which they were all referred to as "residents". I think they were actually domiciliaries, but the journalist who wrote the article didn't know the difference and called them residents by mistake. And yet, somehow, this all happened to them anyway.

The above post by Santa is spot on. These pigs don't give a crap what legalese you may or may not offer them, they're there to do one job, and that's what they did.

TheNocturnalEgyptian
2nd June 2011, 01:32 PM
Palani is right about his definitions. Everyone else is also correct when they say that police will not stop to listen to these definitions and will willingly break the law via force of arms.

Ponce
2nd June 2011, 02:08 PM
Palani? are you a cop?

madfranks
2nd June 2011, 02:39 PM
Cop... Now get your ass on the floor, asshole, before I knock your fuckin teeth out. ;D

palani ... Are you threatening me?


Cop tazes you for resisting arrest and obstruction of justice, you fall to the ground and are handcuffed.

osoab
2nd June 2011, 03:27 PM
This is not the same situation that is described in the OP, but gives a decent clue into the tactics of Midwest cops though. They shoot dogs. I would expect that any resistance would have been met with a bullet to the chest.

I don't think standing up for your rights as soon as the bust in the door, throw flash bangs, and immediately shoot dogs
is the best course of action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng6mfpZ2kR4&feature=player_embedded

The action starts at about 5:30 into the vid. I like listening to the conversation prior to the action.

From the youtube page.


This is a legally obtained video of the Columbia, MO SWAT team serving a search warrant for marijuana on 03.07.2008 at the home of Mr. Jonathan March. Mr. March had no prior felony convictions at the time of the raid.

During the raid, 5 concussion grenades were exploded in and around the home. One of the grenades exploded near the feet of the young lady visitor seen in the video who at the time was seated on the couch. Two additional grenades were exploded subsequent to the arrest on the premise that the CPD needed to prove that the previous 5 grenades had done no damage. The grenades left clear charred remains on the carpet and other areas of the home.

During sworn testimony, the SWAT officers who executed this raid acknowledged that they had shot to death two dogs with their machine guns. Both dogs were shot in the back while retreating. One of the dogs is shot at around 6:30 as an officer tops the stairs, passes a suspect on the floor and steps into a bedroom. You can see a glimpse of the dead dog as the officer stands in the doorway. The dog is obviously facing away from the officer. At 6:55 you can see another injured dog struggling in the hall.

It is important to note that this raid took place before Chief Ken Burton accepted his position with the CPD. Due to the overwhelming public outcry stemming from a more recent yet similar raid under his command, Chief Burton has reigned in the use of his SWAT team to serve search warrants for non-violent crimes and criminals. While the prevalence of violent, paramilitary raids has waned in Columbia, this type of raid is happening somewhere in the United States right now. Please speak out against this government sanctioned domestic terrorism.

For more information or to contact Keep Columbia Free, please visit http://www.KeepColumbiaFree.com

More info on policing for profit via SWAT raids can be found at http://forfeiturereform.com/

Video courtesy of Dan Viets Attorney at Law http://www.danviets.com/

madfranks
2nd June 2011, 03:56 PM
Cop tazes you for resisting arrest and obstruction of justice, you fall to the ground and are handcuffed.


I suggest you not resist arrest then nor obstruct justice either. Offer 'em a donut instead. Hard to taze someone when you have broken bread with 'em.


You have to understand that reality is different than this. A swat team barges into your home and you want to offer them a donut and you think that will solve your problems? The mindset of those swat officers is to subdue or kill, nothing else. So you either submit or die. Doesn't matter what you say or offer them, it will be one or the other.

iOWNme
2nd June 2011, 04:34 PM
Palani is right about his definitions. Everyone else is also correct when they say that police will not stop to listen to these definitions and will willingly break the law via force of arms.




Thank you for saying that.

So are we going to do what's morally right, or what's legally coerced?

This the question that separates great men from common serfs.