Watch Jefferson CountySOPs for SWAT Team
County residents vs city police and state troopers and INS, etc. - when a raid is activated does anyone know of the legal standard operating proceedures?
Case in point: mother, daughter and son asleep in their unlocked home.
Without any warning of any sort a SWAT team like group of 8 to possibly 12 officers representing several agencies threw mother and son down, handcuffed them and scared the be-Jesus out of the daughter.
Mother screaming for her kids - officer identified as a city policewoman screams at Mom that she is going to loose her kids if (Mother cannot understand a thing)
The SWAT team were in the dark of the house, guns blazing, yelling, masked with head-headlights and lights on guns. Mother still screaming.
City police then begin looking for anything, they have a search warrent for a child in the basement.
Mother cannot understand what is going on. Still screaming for her kids - Mother convinced these intruders are terrorists - cannot belive they are police.
Another officer starts to hold a conversation with the son - ya' wanna be a police officer? Then begins to say this is "over the top" to another officer. Then officers start complimenting the Mother on certain antiques and collectables contained in the home. Very strange.
Story supposedly appeared the next morning in the papers - June 1 - the City policewoman had called the papers about 8pm May 31 but the raid wasn't until late that same night - very strange. This same City policewoman stated that nothing would be in the papers - when indeed it had been initiated prior to the raid.
Its a very long story - anyway the Mother and son are released from the handcuffs and over the course of several days after much ado the case is curiously dropped by this City policewoman. However family's computer (everything else that was confiscated is returned) is unavilable due to being sent to some forensic lab somewhare.
In all the states of Virginia & West Virginia are involved as is a foreign country.
The assumption was of an Asian woman "appearing" as a child in a photograph when indeed she was identified by herself and the husband as a 35 year old woman. The husband was not at the home the night of the raid.
My question: can the City police initiate a raid on a county home with sketchy if any information? (Are TV shows that riduculous that the authorities yell out and announce themselves before entering?)
What is the SOP for this type of action.
Is not one innocent until proven guilty?
Thanx, Nance
Comments
Thank the new conservative Supreme Court
There is no longer a requirement that police first knock and annouce that they are entering if they have a warrant. This case was decided earlier this year(Hudson case).
So, if the police had a warrant, they could barge right in no matter what time of day. To get a warrant, they needed to convince a judge that they had probable cause to enter. Given the facts as I understand them, it appears that the police believed that there was some kind of child porn thing going on - even though it was unfounded. They found an judge who was easy to convince and got a warrant. The citizen should get a copy of the warrant, whether charges were dropped or not and see an attorney who specializes in civil rights suits asap.
Katherine
A Delicate Balance
Being able to see "both sides" of this issue, i.e., LE versus the potential criminal and a possible victim, it is a delicate balance between the safety of LE serving a warrant, the safety of a potential victim and the rights of the person being served.
My personal opinion regarding this type of night-time forcible entry is that PC (probable cause) should be required by the judge at a much higher standard to minimize the possibility of this type of incident becoming commonplace in THIS country.
"All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." E. Burke (1729-1797)
Inaccurate Information
The original comment/question has some inaccurate information that should be addressed.
One:
The SWAT team for Jefferson County is a multi-agency team made up of members from the Sheriff's Department and city municipalities. The team is utilized when there is the potential for a confrontation as a result of a search warrant, arrest warrant, hostage situation, barricade incident or at the request of the Sheriff or chief of police if the incident falls within their jurisdiction. In this case, Cloverdale is within the jurisdiction of the Sheriff's Department, not Charles Town. Part of the reasoning behind the use of the team involved the knowledge of the resident having firearms within the residence.
Two: "Guns blazing"
At no point duing the search was a shot fired or any damage done to the residence. During the search, if an object was removed for evidence, it was documented and a copy of all paperwork left for the owner. All things not removed for evidence were returned to their proper location.
Three: Child in the basement
The search warrant was issued for the collection of evidence in regards to the crime of child pornography. This would include computers, pictures, cameras and the like. The warrant was not issued to specifically search for a child in the basement.
Four: City Policewoman
The investigation was initially began by authorities in Viriginia after digital photographs were obtained when the suspect left a store. The photographs left were of enough concern and doubt to the legality of them that police were notified. Information obtained led the investigation to a resident within the jurisdiction of Jefferson County. Based on the facts, a search warrant was requested and granted by the Magistrate Court. Search warrants, especially for a crime of this nature, are not easily granted and by no means do the magistrates just "rubber-stamp" a signature on them.
Five: Innocent until proven guilty
This is correct and the search warrant was issued for the collection of evidence in regards to a crime. The items not relevant to the case were returned at the request of the lawyer representing his client. The computer was retained pending investigation into the contents. When all the evidence is evaluated, if charges are appropriate, they will be filed. As of this date, the client has not been arrested nor spent anytime in jail.
Six:
The news media has access to public records once filed in the court system. LE did not provide a specific name or address to the media.
Seven:
The digital photographs left at the store depicted a young looking female of Asian descent, quite possibly a child, in a pornographic setting. The photographs created enough concern to contact LE. Would not the public want LE to investigate crimes of this nature to ensure the safety of a child victim and even further a possible future victim?
Guns not a blazen but
Two: "Guns blazing"
At no point duing the search was a shot fired or any damage done to the residence.
Guns may not have been ablazen - but I warrant (no pun intended) that they were drawn and in view of the children, the raid was at night, and a woman was home alone with her children. I dare say all were traumatized.
Do I want crimes investigated? Yes, but based on my experiences - there are other ways to investigate crimes of this nature that do not involve such intrusions to a person's privacy based on the very preliminary evidence cited here.
Katherine