9 horrifyingly botched police raids: How do we keep this from happening?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Tormund I intend sometimes to run 5 miles after work. I end up running 2 miles sometimes.

And if running 2 miles were illegal and running 5 miles weren't, I guaran-fuckin-tee you that you would be going to jail regardless of your intent to run the full 5.

[Sturn]

Being a drunken pedestrian is a crime? I have a much more criminal past than I could ever have imagined!

It may vary from place to place. It is also often overlooked. If you step onto a street drunk in my city you can be arrested and charged for Pedestrian Under the Influence. If you stay on the sidewalk you are fine. You could walk circles in a block drunk, you commit a misdemeanor crime when you cross the street.

Edit: Got my dose. Done for now, sorry.

[The Mance]

I was never intending to enter the wrong residence. I accidentally did that with no intent.

:rofl:

Hilarious!

I can't wait to use that defense the next time I get pulled over. "But officer, I never intended to go 3 mph over the speed limit. i accidently did that with no intent!" Sturn says i should get an oopsy!!?!"

[Castel]

No, I didn't. I intended to legally enter a residence due to a paper allowing me to do so signed by a judge. I agree only cops get to do that. I don't think that changes anything.

Yeah, there's favoritism involved. That's how society works.

Hell, even if you can make a legal case for charging police who mistakenly went into the wrong home I personally don't care, I don't think that it should (or would) be charged and that there are good reasons for this.

Personally it's not so much about what is legal for me. People complain about excessive prosecution or minimums but want to pull the same thing here in service of some nebulous goal for "equality". Charge the guy writing the warrants.

[Kalbear]

There's another one that is a good one and probably a bit more up Sturn's alley: possession of drugs with intent to distribute. You don't actually have to prove that the person had that intent to distribute; all you need to do for that charge is have a certain amount of the drug.

[lupis42]

Very good points here. Not the ATF one (has anyone been charged for this scenario?), but the last two. I'm not an attorney, but I would guess that intent and mens rhea was brought up in both of the later two in old case law. Obviously the ruling was for it being a crime and a precedent was set for these to not be defenses. What was the justification in this other then the obvious problems it could cause - everyone since using a, "Hey I thought she was 18" or, "I didn't think you were drunk as I thought I was", defenses? From my layman's point of view it seems like a decent defense to bring this up, even though I know from being a cop that these would never fly today. I just don't understand under my state's intent law (reread it just now) how this could not be a defense. So I'm assuming case law whittled away any such defense long ago?

The ATF one was prosecuted a few years ago. Look for David Olofson - I think I spelled that correctly. It's not completely cut and dried, and I got the CNN account, not the actual transcript, but IIRC, the ATF was arguing that the fact that it was a malfunction, that the manufacturer had issued a recall, etc, were irrelevant. The gun fired multiple rounds from one trigger pull, therefore machine-gun, therefore felony.

More generally, I'm not sure to what extent strict liability comes from statute vs. from case law, you'd need a more lawyerly type for that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sturn,

"Pedestrian under the influence"... really? Geez, why not just make it illegal to be drunk in the first place?

[Sturn]

There's another one that is a good one and probably a bit more up Sturn's alley: possession of drugs with intent to distribute. You don't actually have to prove that the person had that intent to distribute; all you need to do for that charge is have a certain amount of the drug.

It isn't just amount, it's about proving he had intent. This is a classical example of intent. If you stop a guy with one baggy of crack, he isn't getting arrested for possession with intent. If you stop him with 8 individually wrapped packages of crack, $600 in various denominations, and a small scale, you are easily proving intent to sale.

8 bags: Who smokes that much crack at once? Why not have it all in one bag if just for personal use?

$600: It may be used for making change in a drug sale.

Scales: For weighing drugs.

All sorts of other things (like a ton of corner bags) are used to give intent to sale, not just he had X or more amount of drugs.

[Sturn]

Sturn,

"Pedestrian under the influence"... really? Geez, why not just make it illegal to be drunk in the first place?

Get drunk in front of a bar, get drunk at a bar, get drunk in your yard, get drunk at your home, get drunk inside a restaurant, just don't get drunk and walk across a street. It's used to keep slobbering drunks from walking all over town, passing out in your front yard, etc. But mostly it's about keeping the drunks themselves from getting ran over (the street part in the law). In my jurisdiciton it's rarely used except for a reason to get a pain in the arse off the street. You won't go home and want to stand in the street drunk, yell, and debate? Refusing a friendly ride from a cop or friend? Ok next stop the hooscow for a 6 hour hold, sleep it off there, you get a ticket with a fine, you are no longer a nuisance, and you didn't get run over.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Strun,

If the pain in the ass is being a pain in the ass while trying to walk home, should that be a crime?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Scot,

Yes, if the fucker keeps wandering into my path.

:P

[Sturn]

Strun,

If the pain in the ass is being a pain in the ass while trying to walk home, should that be a crime?

To use an age old copper response, I don't make the laws I just enforce them.

But, I don't think we want drunks stumbling around on streets at night with cars driving towards them.

[Daario's*before*Snows]

How does it work, detectives work on a case for x amount of months, then there may be a time where they say Ok the search warrant must be issued right now and not later. Could there be a way to make sure the swat team is familiar with the case, at least know the house so they wont barge in the wrong address.

I guess some warrant cases are done much faster and may not be time to find an officer familiar with the scene. Seems like there should be some way, thats a lot of pressure to put on officers making them barge in strange places like that.

[Kalbear]

It isn't just amount, it's about proving he had intent. This is a classical example of intent. If you stop a guy with one baggy of crack, he isn't getting arrested for possession with intent. If you stop him with 8 individually wrapped packages of crack, $600 in various denominations, and a small scale, you are easily proving intent to sale.

8 bags: Who smokes that much crack at once? Why not have it all in one bag if just for personal use?

$600: It may be used for making change in a drug sale.

Scales: For weighing drugs.

All sorts of other things (like a ton of corner bags) are used to give intent to sale, not just he had X or more amount of drugs.

And this may only be a state specific thing. For instance - Virginia law:

Typically, if a person is arrested with more than one-half ounce of marijuana in their possession, they are charged with possession with the intent to distribute. The reason, in this author’s opinion, is that simple possession of more than one-half ounce is a misdemeanor but the possession with intent to distribute more than one-half ounce of marijuana is a Class 5 Felony. Distribution of one-half ounce or less is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Georgia:

While drug possession is a serious crime on its own, Georgia possession with intent to distribute can have a terrible impact on your life. A law enforcement agent may charge you with possession with intent to distribute if he or she believes that the amount of drugs found on you are for more than personal consumption—they are meant for distribution or sale. Because the penalties for this crime are so great, you should immediately contact a Georgia drug lawyer to explore your options and the most effective way to defend your case.

Florida:

Drug felony statutes often carry minimum mandatory sentence if the drug quantity exceeds a threshold quantity.

Etc, etc.

In any case, there's a lot of grey area there, Sturn, and it absolutely differs here and there depending on the state law. Here's another: traffic accidents. Many states automatically assign fault to a person who rear-ends another, regardless of intent or negligence or anything. I'm sure you can come up with many more - including many involving guns. Point is that there are plenty of laws that do not care at all about what your intent was in order to blame you.

[Sturn]

In any case, there's a lot of grey area there, Sturn, and it absolutely differs here and there depending on the state law. Here's another: traffic accidents. Many states automatically assign fault to a person who rear-ends another, regardless of intent or negligence or anything. I'm sure you can come up with many more - including many involving guns. Point is that there are plenty of laws that do not care at all about what your intent was in order to blame you.

I don't know the answer to this. Reading my state statute for intent does not allow for it. I think a criminal law attorney needs to answer. I'm assuming the answer has something to do with case law leading to changes in what qualifies as intent for one crime versus another. Perhaps that is why a person speeding 5 mph over the limit without intent can be ticketed (case law has deemed this enough for reckless intent and tossing mens rhea) while a person playing baseball and throwing a ball through a window (accidentaly) will not qualify for reckless intent.

On your accident example I can only comment on my state. Police never assign fault, in fact we are told to tell folks in accidents exactly that. Of course we can hand you a ticket for following too closely or running a stop sign, but it's up to a civil court or insurance companies to decide who is at fault for the accident and thus who pays. I've never heard of a state automatically assigning fault to the person who rear-ends the other. That is ridiculous. Of course, typically the rear-ender is the one at fault in my opinion. But all I can do is right a ticket and assign an, "opinion" to a report. I don't decide who caused it directly. I know that sounds kinda stupid.

[Kalbear]

I've never heard of a state automatically assigning fault to the person who rear-ends the other. That is ridiculous. Of course, typically the rear-ender is the one at fault in my opinion. But all I can do is right a ticket and assign an, "opinion" to a report. I don't decide who caused it directly. I know that sounds kinda stupid.

Texas laws states that whoever rear ends is at fault, period. And you get a ticket for it too!

12 states don't have fault at all no matter what - your personal insurance covers you, and the other guy's insurance covers the other guy.

Some states make a case by case decision.

[Robin Of House Hill]

The theory behind the rear-end liability is that if you were driving carefully and were a safe distance behind, you would not have hit the car in front. I would think the same could be applied if the warrant said, "123 main street" and the cops broke into 132 main street.