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

[Robin Of House Hill]

If you kick down someone's door the odds are heavily skewed in favor of you having no legal reason to do so. If cops do so they probably have a reason. If cops did so while serving a warrant they knew they had a legitimate reason. See, there are very few circumstances where you can make an honest mistake, not so for the cops in this scenario.

So technically it was illegal, but I'm not inclined to trying cops who thought they were acting legally because some other fucker fucked up somewhere.

I think a lot would depend on whether the cops misread the warrant or the warrant was improperly prepared.

[Sturn]

I think one of the reasons some of us have opposite responses for charging a person who committed a horrible act accidentally (barging into an innocent's home with gun drawn) may be from different opinions or lack of knowledge of INTENT in criminal law.

I'm not an attorney, so will describe this in layman's terms the best I can. Intent (in my state, possibly every state?) has two different forms described in statute. One of these forms of intent MUST be present to charge someone with a crime. In some crimes, only one of the two can be present for there to be a crime.

The first and most recognizalbe intent is Intentional Conduct where someone actually means to commit a crime. It is willful and not accidental.

Second there is intent by Reckless Conduct where you didn't mean to commit the crime, but you were so reckless in your actions you can still be charged.

The classic example is Murder vs. Manslaughter. The first requires Intentional Conduct. Reckless Conduct is reserved for Manslaughter (accidentally killing someone while doing something very reckless). Murder is one of the exceptions to the rule in that there is actually another crime for Murder with Reckless Conduct intent (manslaughter). Most crimes aren't divided such. There are even crimes in which the Reckless Conduct version can not apply. For example, in my state, Criminal Damage to Property may only be charged if there was intent by Intentional Conduct. You can only be charged with criminal damage if you willfuly do it. If you are being a drunk dumb ass, fight in front of a bar, push someone, and he falls through a glass window, in my state you are getting charged only with Battery, not Criminal Damage. You didn't mean to break the glass and Reckless Conduct does not apply, so no intent. I personaly think this is stupid, but I've lost a case of criminal damage for this exact reason.

Most often in criminal cases it's easy to develop intent (a requirement to charge) since you can easily show the person intended to commit the crime. In other rarer cases you have to strive to prove intent by showing the suspect had Reckless Conduct. The typical test in my jurisdiction is if the person was already committing another crime when he performed the second one with reckless intent. This is why I used the previous example of driving legally and killing a pedestrain (no crime) versus driving drunk (already committing a crime) then killing a pedestrian (manslaughter).

The definition of Reckless Conduct can of course be endlessly debated. A person handing you a warrant as part of your job, you serving it not realizing the address is wrong, is nowhere near meeting the requirement of intent by Reckless Conduct. Obviously it doesn't meet the standard of Intentional Conduct. So, there is no crime in my opinion and experience of two decades in law enforcement. I also believe you are nowhere near having Reckless Conduct intent by making a typo on a warrant. You messed up? Sure. Reckless Conduct? No where near the standard.

If there is no intent, there is no crime. The law does not state, "There must be intent for there to be a crime, unless the suspect is a cop".

Civil law doesn't need this requirement. Sue away. I also agree that if a cop blatantly ignores a written or non-written SOP, he has been "reckless", and thus can be charged with a crime.

Hopefully this explains my thoughts expressed over and over in this thread. I'm not trying to make an exception for police, just believe in having the same standard under law for all. 'Merica.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But there is intent when police enter the house. They didn't accidentally kick the door down while thinking they were at a martial arts tournament. They sure enough found a door and kicked it down. They didn't accidentally handcuff the wrong guy while thinking they were at a bondage club.

Now, you can say well they actually intended to kick a different door down and handcuff a different guy, and I would respond that that doesn't fly. If they intended to kick a different door down they'd be at a different fucking door. There is no such thing as an honest mistake when it comes to this shit. I don't get to hit random kids at the park in the face and say in my defense that I intended to spank my kid at my house.

[lupis42]

I think one of the reasons some of us have opposite responses for charging a person who committed a horrible act accidentally (barging into an innocent's home with gun drawn) may be from different opinions or lack of knowledge of INTENT in criminal law.

I'm not an attorney, so will describe this in layman's terms the best I can. Intent (in my state, possibly every state?) has two different forms described in statute. One of these forms of intent MUST be present to charge someone with a crime. In some crimes, only one of the two can be present for there to be a crime.

You might want to look into strict liability.

[Sturn]

Sturn

When you read this, can you give your opinion about if its possible to make sure officers are better informed about the case. So you dont have situations where cops are forced to barge into places they dont know much about.

I dont know if it would be logistically possible to do that or not.

If you are asking if there is room for improvement, then of course there is. I'm a believer that even if we are performing a certain task admirably, there is still room for improvement and discussion on how to do it even better.

If you are asking if police strive to be as informed as they can in the time given, then the answer in my experience is yes. During a search warrant, it's beneficial not just for the suspects but for the police to have as much information as possible. Why would we ever not strive for that? However, sometimes the information is just not available. For example, tactical teams strive to get the layout of a residence before they enter and have it on some sort of a white board for planning an entry. The source may just be a witness or cop that was in the house once. We don't have a database of complete residential house plans for our entire city to draw upon. Sometimes the only information we may have is where the doors and windows are from driving around the house in the daytime. That doesn't mean we sometimes aren't forced to enter the residence anyway. We don't like having poor information either.

[Sturn]

But there is intent when police enter the house. They didn't accidentally kick the door down while thinking they were at a martial arts tournament. They sure enough found a door and kicked it down. They didn't accidentally handcuff the wrong guy while thinking they were at a bondage club.

Now, you can say well they actually intended to kick a different door down and handcuff a different guy, and I would respond that that doesn't fly. If they intended to kick a different door down they'd be at a different fucking door. There is no such thing as an honest mistake when it comes to this shit. I don't get to hit random kids at the park in the face and say in my defense that I intended to spank my kid at my house.

So mistakes only count for non-police in your opinion? Good luck getting that inserted into statute anytime soon. Are you saying there is a much different definition of intent in your state? Or are you saying there is already a clause that says to charge police you don't need intent of a crime? If so please explain. The wording, case law, and practice in my jurisdiction will not allow for intent at all in the scenarios I just described.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So mistakes only count for non-police in your opinion? Good luck getting that inserted into statute anytime soon. Are you saying there is a much different definition of intent in your state? Or are you saying there is already a clause that says to charge police you don't need intent of a crime? If so please explain. The wording, case law, and practice in my jurisdiction will not allow for intent at all in the scenarios I just described.

I'm not saying that intent is not a portion of the crime. I'm saying that being at the wrong door does not absolve you of intent. You can not say that you did not intend to kick down the door. You can't say that you were involved in some other activity and the door got kicked down in the process. There absolutely was intent to kick down the door. You're saying that because you meant to kick down some different door you're absolved of guilt because there was no intent. That's crap.

You might have no intent, for example, to set the house on fire if you're properly serving a warrant and a flashbang ignites the drapes. You were participating in a legal activity, and in your fervor caused some additional damage. Understandable. There may still be liability for negligence, but I don't think you should be charged with arson. But you don't get to claim the same lack of intent at the completely wrong house. Because if your intent was to properly serve a warrant, you'd be in a completely different friggin geographical location.

[lupis42]

So mistakes only count for non-police in your opinion? Good luck getting that inserted into statute anytime soon. Are you saying there is a much different definition of intent in your state? Or are you saying there is already a clause that says to charge police you don't need intent of a crime? If so please explain. The wording, case law, and practice in my jurisdiction will not allow for intent at all in the scenarios I just described.

According to the ATF, if one of my rifles malfunctions in a way that causes it to fire more than one round on a single trigger pull, regardless of intent, I would have an illegal machine gun - a felony.

If you have sex with a minor, even if they presented you with convicing ID that showed them to be of age, you've committed rape - certainly a felony.

If you have a drinks, check yourself with a breathalyzer, see you are under the legal limit and drive, when you get pulled over and the blood test reveals you were one point over the limit, thats a DUI - (not sure if this is a felony where you live, but it's not legal behavior).

[Sturn]

I'm not saying that intent is not a portion of the crime. I'm saying that being at the wrong door does not absolve you of intent. You can not say that you did not intend to kick down the door. You can't say that you were involved in some other activity and the door got kicked down in the process. There absolutely was intent to kick down the door. You're saying that because you meant to kick down some different door you're absolved of guilt because there was no intent. That's crap.

You might have no intent, for example, to set the house on fire if you're properly serving a warrant and a flashbang ignites the drapes. You were participating in a legal activity, and in your fervor caused some additional damage. Understandable. There may still be liability for negligence, but I don't think you should be charged with arson. But you don't get to claim the same lack of intent at the completely wrong house. Because if your intent was to properly serve a warrant, you'd be in a completely different friggin geographical location.

..but can't you in all honesty say you intended to kick down the door of the suspect on the warrant, and not the neighbor next door?

I understand now what you are saying. When I ran up to the house with the ram, I was intending to strike that door in front of me of course. But, I was not intending to trespass, or intending to commit criminal damage to an innocent's door. In my mind (mens rea) I was intending to break down a door legally. I was intending to enter a residence legally. I was never intending to enter the wrong residence. I accidentally did that with no intent.

[Kalbear]

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

Doesn't matter. if you (as a non-cop)intended to shoot someone and instead shot someone else, it being an accidental shot doesn't matter. If I intended to get into my house and instead ended up breaking into yours, my intent doesn't matter; I have still broken into your house. If Merentha intended to give someone the right injection and failed, the intent doesn't matter; he is still liable. Lupis mentioned above the notion of strict liability, and it's something you don't understand - but citizens are completely subject to it.

Point of fact many states have strict liability associated with firearms. An example: a man in New York was carrying a gun and the gun accidentally went off and shot him in the leg. He didn't intend to shoot anyone - but the law is clear about that if he's carrying a gun and it goes off in the limits, it's a specific violation - regardless of intent. Many states have things like automatic upgrades in severity if guns are used as part of a crime, regardless of whether or not the crime itself was particularly major.

There's tons of precedent for charging cops with felonious assault, endangerment, property damage, and murder. Sorry that they didn't intend to do so, but ultimately if that is a problem perhaps we should be a hell of a lot more cautious about getting bad guys when so many good guys get fucked over these sorts of mistakes.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

..but can't you in all honesty say you intended to kick down the door of the suspect on the warrant, and not the neighbor next door?

I understand now what you are saying. When I ran up to the house with the ram, I was intending to strike that door in front of me of course. But, I was not intending to trespass, or intending to commit criminal damage to an innocent's door. In my mind (mens rea) I was intending to break down a door legally. I was intending to enter a residence legally. I was never intending to enter the wrong residence. I accidentally did that with no intent.

But don't you understand that the police are the only people in the world who get to claim that? I can't punch someone in the face and claim that I was intending to be in a boxing ring fighting a willing opponent. I can't rape someone and claim that I was intending to have consensual sex with my wife. You DID intend to trespass. You could have gone to the correct house, but you didn't. I could have checked to see if I was in the ring at the MGM Grand, but I didn't.

[Sturn]

According to the ATF, if one of my rifles malfunctions in a way that causes it to fire more than one round on a single trigger pull, regardless of intent, I would have an illegal machine gun - a felony.

If you have sex with a minor, even if they presented you with convicing ID that showed them to be of age, you've committed rape - certainly a felony.

If you have a drinks, check yourself with a breathalyzer, see you are under the legal limit and drive, when you get pulled over and the blood test reveals you were one point over the limit, thats a DUI - (not sure if this is a felony where you live, but it's not legal behavior).

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?

[Sturn]

Doesn't matter. if you (as a non-cop)intended to shoot someone and instead shot someone else, it being an accidental shot doesn't matter. If I intended to get into my house and instead ended up breaking into yours, my intent doesn't matter; I have still broken into your house.

I don't actually agree with this. If you shot at a bad man entering your residence, missed, and shot the neighbor across the street instead there would need to be some other element to charge you with even Manslaughter.

The same goes for the trespassing scenario. If you are a drunken pedestrain or driver (both crimes), enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you are being charged with criminal trespass. There is reckless intent. If you are mentally deficient or all of the homes in your neighborhood look nearly identifical (true story) and you enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you aren't getting charged with trespass.

[Kalbear]

The same goes for the trespassing scenario. If you are a drunken pedestrain or driver (both crimes), enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you are being charged with criminal trespass.

I didn't say drunk.

In any case, you're wrong; there are plenty of strict liability rules. The simplest example is speeding. Regardless of whether or not you intended to speed or even if you were aware you were speeding, you can be found guilty for speeding.

[Sturn]

You DID intend to trespass.

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.

[Sturn]

PS: Thank you Tormund, Kalbear, Lupis. While I don't agree with much of what you are saying, I'm at least learnin somthun. My disagreement with you doesn't mean I think you are a jerk or anything, I respect the opinions. I've come to understand some ideas and perceptions regarding law at this forum better then from some training I get sent to.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

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.

If that was your intent you would have been at that residence. But you weren't. Case closed.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't actually agree with this. If you shot at a bad man entering your residence, missed, and shot the neighbor across the street instead there would need to be some other element to charge you with even Manslaughter.

The same goes for the trespassing scenario. If you are a drunken pedestrain or driver (both crimes), enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you are being charged with criminal trespass. There is reckless intent. If you are mentally deficient or all of the homes in your neighborhood look nearly identifical (true story) and you enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you aren't getting charged with trespass.

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

[Sturn]

I didn't say drunk.

The same goes for the trespassing scenario. If you are a drunken pedestrain or driver (both crimes), enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you are being charged with criminal trespass. There is reckless intent. If you are mentally deficient or all of the homes in your neighborhood look nearly identifical (true story) and you enter your neighbor's residence accidentally, you aren't getting charged with trespass.

[Sturn]

If that was your intent you would have been at that residence. But you weren't. Case closed.

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