Comments on: SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids

By: SWAT RAIDS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES « MENTAL PINPRICKS

SWAT RAIDS AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES « MENTAL PINPRICKS — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:12:59 +0000

[...] SWAT Raids vs. Military Raids Show Me Daily, Missouri Public Policy [...]

By: Columbia SWAT Officers Cleared « Rough Ol' Boy

Columbia SWAT Officers Cleared « Rough Ol' Boy — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:42:09 +0000

[...] internal investigation into the SWAT raid of Jonathan Whitworth’s home (which I have also covered here, here, here, and here) has cleared all the officers involved of any wrongdoing. Given my [...]

By: John Payne

John Payne — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:46:34 +0000

It may be sad to say but elections are a pretty weak check on a person’s power. They are infrequent and many voters are rationally ignorant of the issues.

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:04:36 +0000

In theory, the judge is accountable to the voters, either via direct election or retention votes, here in Missouri. They are also subject to impeachment for gross violations of duty.

By: John Payne

John Payne — Thu, 20 May 2010 21:14:41 +0000

I’m not saying that only the judge should be held accountable, but they should have some skin in the game otherwise they have little incentive to be anything other than a rubber stamp on the police, and in that case why not just let the police sign their own warrants?

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:06:11 +0000

A while back – probably a decade or so – I was at McGurk’s and I saw my parents there with friends of theirs. One of their friends was a judge, and a short time after I joined them some cops showed up at McGurk’s with a warrant they needed her to sign. She explained that there is always at least one judge on duty 24/7 to sign off on things like this in the city of St. Louis. She was on duty that night, so she had to let the department know where she would be at all times. (If this is sounding familiar to you movie buffs, think of how the Corleone family found out where the Turk and his bodyguard, the Seargant, were going to meet Michael for their dinner meeting that night.) Anyway, I don’t recall how long she reviewed the documents before signing off on them, but what would you have had her do other than making sure everything looked in order and then signing? Should she have left the restaurant to go personally inspect the crack house or unlicensed snow cone stand they were about to raid? Should she have accompanied the cops on the raid or arrest to make certain they didn’t use too much force? Of course not. All they can do is make sure the details are there and then trust the cops to have made the right call. That is how it works in reality in a big, high-crime city like St. Louis.

I agree with John on most of the points he is making on this issue, but holding judges personally liable – when victims of mistakes are perfectly free to sue the police department or city to recover damages – is a bad idea.

In cases where you can prove a judge acted recklessly, a professional misconduct claim may indeed be a worthwhile avenue of recourse.

By: John Payne

John Payne — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:45:08 +0000

Also, suing the department really provides little incentive to get it right. Any damages will be paid out of tax dollars, not from the person responsible. Furthermore, I’m not saying sue judges when police make a decision to use too much force, but if a judge authorizes a warrant that uses too much force or on the wrong house.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:23:13 +0000

What if I make a professional misconduct claim? Hard to prove, certainly, but with a valid claim and sufficient evidence, why should qualified immunity provide judges with legal cover for rubberstamping search warrants?

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:26:17 +0000

Allowing judges to be held personally liable is a terrible idea. The department can be sued in cases of police mistakes. That is all you need here. You can’t really think that a judge should be sued in a personal capacity because the cops on the ground have made an error in determining how much force to use.

By: Eapen Thampy

Eapen Thampy — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:39:32 +0000

I think this is an excellent comparison to make because it starkly illustrates the divergence between domestic law enforcement practices and what is reasonable and effective.

By: John Payne

John Payne — Wed, 19 May 2010 16:48:22 +0000

A judge must sign off on all warrants, but far too many serve as a rubber stamp. This shouldn’t be surprising considering that judges cannot be held personally liable for the warrants they issue. If judges could be sued whenever they issued a warrant for the wrong location or using too much force, I think we’d likely see fewer mistakes made.

You are also certainly correct that SWAT raids in America have a different objective from military raids in Afghanistan, but if the only way to achieve the former objective is by using tactics more aggressive than those used by soldiers in a war zone, it might be time to rethink the objective.

By: DaveG

DaveG — Wed, 19 May 2010 01:21:40 +0000

I believe the local police department has to get special permission from a judge who must be convinced by available evidence that the person they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods, right?

Also, wouldn’t American SWAT forces have different objectives than ones in Afghanistan? Like catch the bad guy with the drugs before he has a chance to flush them down the toilet?