Map of Botched Paramilitary Police Raids
cato.org
cato.org
> "If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
> —Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.
From the graph they present, I cannot determine a pattern. That has nothing to do with the necessity of the raids.
The court found that a single "knock-and-announce" violation (not waiting 10 to 20 seconds in this case) wasn't enough to disqualify evidence that was found in the hours following, during the execution of the search warrant. What Kennedy meant was that if this wasn't an isolated incident and was in-fact becoming a common side effect of police procedure, then the legal system would have to start reevaluating how strict it will be with such violations.
Relevant paragraphs:
Today's decision does not address any demonstrated pattern of knock-and-announce violations. If a widespread pattern of violations were shown, and particularly if those violations were committed against persons who lacked the means or voice to mount an effective protest, there would be reason for grave concern. Even then, however, the Court would have to acknowledge that extending the remedy of exclusion to all the evidence seized following a knock-and-announce violation would mean revising the requirement of causation that limits our discretion in applying the exclusionary rule. That type of extension also would have significant practical implications, adding to the list of issues requiring resolution at the criminal trial questions such as whether police officers entered a home after waiting 10 seconds or 20.
In this case the relevant evidence was discovered not because of a failure to knock-and-announce, but because of a subsequent search pursuant to a lawful warrant. The Court in my view is correct to hold that suppression was not required. While I am not convinced that Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 (1984), and New York v. Harris, 495 U. S. 14 (1990), have as much relevance here as Justice Scalia appears to conclude, the Court's holding is fully supported by Parts I through III of its opinion. I accordingly join those Parts and concur in the judgment.
The means to fix Chicago's problem is available, however it requires a mayor with strength of character more concerned for the people than himself.
Apparently, Cato sells a lot of books/papers[2]. Is that a common practice for think tanks (I have no idea)?
[1] http://store.cato.org/reports/overkill-rise-paramilitary-pol... [2]http://store.cato.org/books
Secondly, what is the point of this map ? For all I know there could be millions of legitimate raids each year in which case the tens of botched ones here would make for a statistical impressive record. Seems borderline deceitful on their part not to state how many total raids happened each year.
According to the abstract of the paper, estimates are at 40k paramilitarized police raids PER YEAR. I agree that statistically the data is insignificant but looking at the number of innocent deaths (1-5 per year generally), I have an uneasy feeling that this increase in force may have hit diminishing returns as far as safety goes and are now into the zone of increasing false positives.
Both of course are loaded terms. Another way to play it would be to say that better trained and experienced officers are conducting these operations with a very low rate of adverse outcomes. Would they be higher if the cops who weren't on these teams were carrying out these "raids".
How many people are year are killed by emergency services vehicles? How many are killed following other police interactions?
> How many people are year are killed by emergency services vehicles? How many are killed following other police interactions?
You're kidding right? Is this really an acceptable form of argument? The point isn't total number of deaths, the point is the increasing use of flak jackets, stun grenades ("flashbangs" but don't kid yourself, they're grenades), automatic weapons, and military counter-insurgency tactics in situations where you can't rationally justify such actions.
And to preempt an obvious red herring: Gang shootouts, extensive drug rings, hostage situations, and violent offenders DO JUSTIFY the use of such force. Nonviolent offenses and other situations where there is little reason to expect an armed suspect do not.
You presented the issue as 1-5 people a year being killed. If you agree it isn't significant then what is the problem? Because it isn't that it causes deaths.
If you're going to tackle perceived problems with American policing there seem to be far better areas to address than "I don't like paramilitary raids that don't actually have statistically meaningful adverse outcomes".
2011 - 6 botched raids. 99.99% success rate.
2010 - 17 botched raids. 99.96% success rate.
Call me crazy but that seems like a very impressive success rate given 40000 total.
Their success rate for 40,000/yr does properly reveal if the botched raids were a cost of doing business or a consequence of increased militarization. For all we know, stricter scrutiny regarding situations where SWAT teams are used could reduce the raids to 35,000/yr and almost completely eliminate botched raids without decreasing overall safety (the primary reason for using SWAT teams). The point here is to point out excessive force in a few categories of situations, not to put into question the whole purpose of SWAT teams.
A cursory search reveals these "botched" raids in 2012 alone: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/swat-team-throws-...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/cops-kill-dog-handcuff-kids-in-wr...
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-r...
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/aug/04/arizona_swat...
http://rt.com/usa/swat-billings-burns-fasching-312/
Or how about this: when the DEA pulled local SWAT resources (the majority of local SWAT forces) to raid Oaksterdam in Oakland (unarmed civilians protected by state law), they failed to respond to a shooting in a university a few MILES away.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/20...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/oakland-sc...
The shooter described lining people up against and firing at them Ceaușescu style.
Also, note that unless you change the settings, it is showing 28 years worth of data. If you don't notice this, you'll get the impression that botched raids are happening all the time.
In interested to know how the prevalence of always on recording devices might impact law enforcement.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...)
Including information for Northern Ireland would be problematic.
Armed raids are comparatively rare in the UK, and when they do take place, they are far less spectacular than in the US.
I assume you are talking about US police? I have no experience of them. Well, apart from watching US TV and movies!!!
Sending armed police officers to raid a building here is very rare. The vast majority of warrants and searches, even dealing with folk with previous for assaulting police offices are carried out by a handful of normal, unarmed, beat cops.