SWAT Invasion

[beljones17]

What is the name of your state? Kentucky. On December 4, 2004 The Louisville SWAT team burst through our door. They set off flash grenades and were in full military gear. They held us at gunpoint (including my children ages 1,6,9,10, and 16). We stated that there must be some mistake. We were told to shut up! After about 6-8 minutes, the Narcotics Unit shows up. They ransacked our home. We were bound and detained while all this occurred! They left after finding nothing and arresting no one (OF COURSE)! The next day the local news did a story on what happened.The police spokesperson said that I knew the person they were looking for and they had been seen at my house. After an internal investigation by the Major whose men were on the invasion, he stated that they had received some bad information and a search warrant should have never been issued. My family has been devastated by what has happened. I am a respected businessman in my community. The actions and statements by the police have forever tarnished my good name. Have our rights been violated? Were we subjected to an unreasonable search? Did the police slander me by saying I knew the people they were looking for? Please help us!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by beljones17

Have our rights been violated?

Probably not. If the police served a valid search warrant, then they were within their rights to take appropriate measures for their safety and to make entry.

However, if their investigation or follow-up that led to the affidavit for the warrant was bad, then there might be some action that can be had for failing to follow appropriate measures.

Were we subjected to an unreasonable search?

For serving a warrant? No.

Did the police slander me by saying I knew the people they were looking for? Please help us!

Probably not. If it is their opinion that you knew the person they were looking for, and they can at least back that up with soimething - even if it was erroneous info, then they are probably okay here.

Talk with a lawyer and see if there is some action that can be taken. This can be very act specific.

- Carl

[beljones17]

The informant listed in the affidavit has come forward and said that he and one of the detectives made some control buys at the targeted house, which was two doors down from me. The detective also took photos of the house which has iron bars on the windows and doors. From where they were observing the buys, you could not even see my house. As far as the statement that I knew the people the police were looking for, this was based on the assumption that they searched the right home which turned out to be false.

[CdwJava]

You might consider consulting an attorney. Depending on all the details, the police liability may be minimal ... or, it can be a complete and total foul-up that will expose them to big bucks. Without knowing all the details it's hard to say. But, based solely on what you've written, I'd lean toward it being a potentially costly foul-up.

- Carl

[zwara]

"Have our rights been violated?"...abosolutely without question!!!.. pursuant to the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States..."the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." "Did the police slander me by saying I knew the people they were looking for?" most likely not if they retracted the statement and admited they obtained it from bad information as which appears to be the case when you wrote "he stated that they had received some bad information and a search warrant should have never been issued", by the "Major" admitting that the warrant should have never been issued due to some bad information (a better term would be due to poor investigation on the part of your local law enforcement to insure the information was valid), then it is clear they didnt have probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Now in the eyes of some law enforcement personel, some Judges, some lawyers, some so~called legal experts, some courts, some high courts up to and including the omnipresent Supreme Court they might want to comfort you with the idea that "no Sir your rights were not violated since although the warrant was obtained using bad information the actual search warrant was a valid warrant served in good faith" or something close to that...but make no mistake about it, your constitutional rights were indeed violated. Is there any recourse or grivience procedures allowed for you to compensate for this violation?, most likely not since as stated earlier most complaints such as what happen to you and your family are simply swept under the rug by the "good ole boy" claim of "the action being done in good faith", in fact you might want to count your blessings for they could have (in a good faith kind of way) shot and killed you or another family member by their error of judgement in forcing entry into your home and could stiLL hide behind the cloak of immunity since after all, better you then them in their judgement. Im curious though, did they use the knock & annouce method in serving the warrant allowing you a reasonable time~~frame to respond or did they just "bust in with guns drawn" like ya see in the movies? Of course if they had a reason to believe (again even in a good faith kind of way) the threat of imminent danger lurking behind the door they would have been in compliance within the law to perform such a strong arm entry. I dont mean to humor the act as this post might have the appearance to entertain to some because the nightmare you and your family were forced to endure is not funny and is a serious offence that no citizen of this great Country should ever have to witness but sadly it happens more then we want to believe and I can personally tesify to the results of injustice so your not alone and one last thing...did anyone say "were sorry".....good luck......pappygein

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by zwara

"Have our rights been violated?"...abosolutely without question!!!.. pursuant to the 4th amendment of the Constitution of the United States..."the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...."

Actually, since they apparently had a lawful warrant, this may not be completely true. If they failed to follow procedure to obtain sufficient supprting verification of the facts contained in the affidavit, then there might be a 4th Amendment angle there. Otherwise, it's likely to be a costly foul-up for a variety of other reasons.

by the "Major" admitting that the warrant should have never been issued due to some bad information (a better term would be due to poor investigation on the part of your local law enforcement to insure the information was valid), then it is clear they didnt have probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

Maybe. Maybe not. The devil will be in the details.

but make no mistake about it, your constitutional rights were indeed violated.

That is up to a court to decide - not me, not you.

Is there any recourse or grivience procedures allowed for you to compensate for this violation?, most likely not since as stated earlier most complaints such as what happen to you and your family are simply swept under the rug by the "good ole boy" claim of "the action being done in good faith"

Even "good faith" only goes so far. If this house was never involved in any of the transactions, and photos were taken of the actual house and it was NOT the original poster's, then there IS liability here and my guess is that a settlement would be quick and painless ... with an attorney getting a huge chunk, of course.



- Carl

[zwara]

I am what I am and I wont be the same unless this damn post works this time

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Actually, since they apparently had a lawful warrant, this may not be completely true. If they failed to follow procedure to obtain sufficient supprting verification of the facts contained in the affidavit, then there might be a 4th Amendment angle there. Otherwise, it's likely to be a costly foul-up for a variety of other reasons.

I can appreciate your honest opinion, and in the eyes of our judicial system you are indeed most likely correct in regards to a "lawfuL warrant" being served that would justify the actions...but as I see it as what a reasonable person might view as being reasonable in regards to common sense logic, how in this case would the warrant be "lawful" when the fact the wrong house was entered upon..aside from what the courts might find "lawful" doesnt change what the 4th~amendment guarantees...so even if the warrant was deemed "lawful" by the courts the 4th~amendment still must be the standard measure to determine the end result i would think, and to say the rights of the persons residing inside the home were not violated due to the the fact law enforcement errored while performing their duty in preparing the needed oath of affirmation to obtain a search warrant is like telling the IRS because you forgot to pay your taxes, you shouldnt be penalized. How can there be an exception to what the 4th..Amd. guarantees without probable cause? Does it contain any wording to excuse warrants being served on the wrong house?. I mean who is accountable here??, the occupants of the house who have done nothing?? It would be unreasonable to assume no violation occured simply on the grounds the warrant was deemed "lawful" and served in good faith when in fact the house was never suspect to begin with.

Maybe. Maybe not. The devil will be in the details.

again I'm only going on what is being presented by the person who started this thread and if in fact the "Major" did say what the thread states he said then it must be assumed the house was targeted by mistake...my Father always taught me to "refrain from a judging a man unless you have worn his boots for a day and then only if at the end of the day they needed polished" (but I am human and I never quite mastered the art of shoeshine). I have never been in law enforcement so for me to truely judge their work even as layman would be foolish at best but I do know the difference between good performance and poor performance and also what lies between the two, so with that I would place "searching the wrong house" something near "removing a kidney when the the paperwork calls for removing the gall bladder"

That is up to a court to decide - not me, not you.

and you are 100% "right on" correct on that.... but then again this is a forum and not a courtroom so the margin for error is much more forgiving when passing the verdict....but I will stick with my "Violated as Sin" theory on the grounds of what the 4th~amend. clearly states (and what it doesnt state).... and pass on the what some men (and women) wearing robes, with alot of old leather books sitting upon row upon row... coming up with opinions with words that would confuse even "Moses" himself...besides I dont care that much for that "Judge Judy" bitch that at times appears to be far too judgmental at times (no pun intended nor otherwise)...

Even "good faith" only goes so far. If this house was never involved in any of the transactions, and photos were taken of the actual house and it was NOT the original poster's, then there IS liability here and my guess is that a settlement would be quick and painless ... with an attorney getting a huge chunk, of course.

good faith....again I cannot disagree with you... but once I spent some time looking into some cases where I would have guessed liability would have applied and in what I can recollect from those cases the final word always seemed to be "done in good faith"....and in regards to attorneys and such....well I think I'll pass on that one for tonight.....pappygein

- Carl