Man shoots at drug-raid cops, judge rules raid illegal
- Thread starter Ian
- Start date
- Status
griz
Member
Interesting. Sounds like the Police don't want to accept the judges ruling that they broke the law.
5 seconds may be too short, but my question is how do they know it was only 5 seconds? Are they just taking the homeowners word for it, are cops also saying they only waited 5 seconds, or was there some other testimony or evidence of the 5 seconds?
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
A judge worthy of the title for once.
I also hope the victim gets a large settlement with the civil suit.
I also hope the victim gets a large settlement with the civil suit.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Seems simple to me -- gotta allow a reasonable time before you break in. Otherwise, they could apply for a no-knock warrant. What's with the
lilysdad?Deavis
Member
the is because the comment was blantly in favor of punishing the cops for "doing their job". Whichever way you take the latter will no doubt be based on your opinion of the police serving warrants by busting down doors.
My question is, what is the evidence that they found? Did I miss it? Did they find drugs? Was the boy living there or was that where he was supposed to be selling them? The story leaves too much out to say whether they were going in on a potential drug house or just fishing for it. 5 seconds is an awfully short time to wake up and be coherent enough to deal with your door being broken in and armed men coming at you.
Anyone have more details?
is because the comment was blantly in favor of punishing the cops for "doing their job". Whichever way you take the latter will no doubt be based on your opinion of the police serving warrants by busting down doors.My question is, what is the evidence that they found? Did I miss it? Did they find drugs? Was the boy living there or was that where he was supposed to be selling them? The story leaves too much out to say whether they were going in on a potential drug house or just fishing for it. 5 seconds is an awfully short time to wake up and be coherent enough to deal with your door being broken in and armed men coming at you.
Anyone have more details?
Zero pertinent information given, other than the judge throwing a search out, which happens all the time, and wrongfully a lot of the time....
Nothing wrong with 6:35am...our warrants state from 6am to 10pm for misdemeanor and search warrants...we prefer to serve them at 6am...folks are normally calmer when they are just waking up.
Nothing wrong with 6:35am...our warrants state from 6am to 10pm for misdemeanor and search warrants...we prefer to serve them at 6am...folks are normally calmer when they are just waking up.
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
So by breaking in the door after 5 seconds, they violated procedure, and the terms of the warrant. And the 4th amendment. So the evidence becomes "fruit of the poisonous tree". Nice work.
Steve in PA
Member
I believe there is a (recent) court rulling stating that they feel the appropriate wait time is 20 seconds.
So, while they were doing their job, someone should have known better (by keeping up on the current rulings).
So, while they were doing their job, someone should have known better (by keeping up on the current rulings).
I found some more related stories on the same news site. I can't post links because of their search software, but here's the text of the articles:
--------------------------------
Need is for rethinking in the Howell case
Monday, September 22, 2003
Misuse of authority can become a perpetual downward spiral that can bring out the worst in the best of people.
That dynamic shows blatantly in the case of Robert Howell. Howell is a local mechanic who seems destined to pay a horrible price for the actions of his drug-culture son, Brian, and the egos of members of the Prescott Area Narcotics Task Force (PANT).
Brian had a drug problem, and the Howells had banned him from their home unless Howell or his wife were there.
But this past March, PANT officers say that 72 hours before this downward spiral kicked off, they bought less than an ounce of marijuana from Brian at the home. After a small-time grass buy, members of PANT made an early-morning raid on the home on March 5 worthy of Pablo Escobar Armed with a search warrant looking for Brian, the officers started breaking down Howell�s front door.
Awakened from a sound sleep, Howell thought someone was trying to break in. He grabbed a .45 semi-automatic pistol. Just as the door gave way, Howell fired impulsively. Luckily for everyone, the bullet didn�t hit anyone. The minute he realized the intruders were police, Howell dropped the gun and surrendered.
The officers, however, charged Howell with four counts of attempted murder, four counts of aggravated assault and one Class 6 felony count of discharging a firearm in the city limits.
Howell shouldn�t have fired the shot even in the face of overkill actions by the police, but he shouldn�t face anything more than a misdemeanor charge for that.
Judge Janis Sterling dismissed the attempted murder charges but allowed the others to stand. Howell has both personal injury and criminal attorneys advising him, and they sometimes have conflicting interests.
At any rate, Howell turned down an offer to plead guilty to the felony firearms discharge in return for the state dismissing the aggravated assault charges. None of this would have happened if PANT officers hadn�t decided on the raid, and he doesn�t deserve a felony record for their poor judgment.
It would be the right thing for Howell to take his medicine on the misdemeanor firearms discharge count and for the state to walk away grateful that the uncalled-for show of force didn�t lead to a worse outcome.
Instead, the county attorney has added four counts of endangerment to the charges.
Payback can be hell.
---------------------------------------
Howell files suit vs. PANT, officials
Thursday, January 08, 2004
PRESCOTT � Robert Howell, who has admitted he fired a shot at police officers as they entered his home in March 2003, has filed suit against a number of law enforcement officials and seven police officers.
The lawsuit comes four-plus months after Howell�s defense team, Anthony Shaw and Kenneth Ray, filed a $2 million notice of claim for damages that the defendant and his wife Patti allegedly suffered as a result of the incident. (See related story, Page 10A.) Howell
The claim, as well as the lawsuit, is against the Prescott Area Narcotics Task Force (PANT) management committee, which includes Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, police chiefs from nine police departments, Yavapai County Sheriff Buck Buchanan, Arizona Department of Public Safety Lt. James Gerard, and seven police officers who were assigned to PANT at the time of the incident.
�We are now moving on a civil case,� Shaw said, adding that they are in the beginning stages of discovery and deposition. �I�ve already sent my request to serve documents� related to PANT policy and training manuals, its procedures and intergovernmental agreement, Shaw added.
The lawsuit alleges that officers obtained a search warrant based on inadequate probable cause because �it was based upon an unreliable informant and insufficient and untrue facts obtained by (PANT officer Kel) Palguta.�
Based on that information, a judge issued a warrant for a search of Bryan Keith Kelly, who has never lived or resided in the plaintiff�s home, the complaint alleges.
In addition, the officers entered Howell�s home without proper knocking and announcing of police presence with a reasonable waiting period, the lawsuit states.
Not knowing who was breaking into his home because he, his wife Patti and their son were asleep, Howell fired a round in self defense and defense of property and family, the lawsuit states.
The officers then forcibly arrested Howell and detained his wife and their teen-age son and questioned them in a rough and hostile manner, which inflicted physical injuries, the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit spells out 10 different claims for relief including unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, assault and battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which the plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of the officers� conduct.
Shaw said the defendants� lawyers may call his client to give a deposition, but added that �He (Howell) has the right to take the Fifth (Amendment) so long as the criminal case is pending.�
Shaw said he doesn�t plan to call many witnesses to testify because he and Ray already interviewed a number of them when they gathered information for the criminal case.
Prescott City Attorney John Moffitt, who is representing Police Chief Robert Reed, Assistant Police Chief Dave Benner and former PANT Sgt. Pete Hodap, said �it is going to take a number of months of intensive discovery before we can make a call whether it is a valid case.�
�From what we can see in the lawsuit as well as the original claim, we do not think that our officers did anything wrong,� he added.
James Jellison and Larry Crown, attorneys from an insurance pool who are representing Polk, Buchanan and Prescott Valley Police Chief Dan Schatz, were unavailable for comment.
The defendants have 20 days from the day they receive the complaint to file their answer and 60 days to respond to the documents� request. Shaw said the defendants from the tri-city area were served on Dec. 30, while others received the complaint on Jan. 2.
---------------------------------
--------------------------------
Need is for rethinking in the Howell case
Monday, September 22, 2003
Misuse of authority can become a perpetual downward spiral that can bring out the worst in the best of people.
That dynamic shows blatantly in the case of Robert Howell. Howell is a local mechanic who seems destined to pay a horrible price for the actions of his drug-culture son, Brian, and the egos of members of the Prescott Area Narcotics Task Force (PANT).
Brian had a drug problem, and the Howells had banned him from their home unless Howell or his wife were there.
But this past March, PANT officers say that 72 hours before this downward spiral kicked off, they bought less than an ounce of marijuana from Brian at the home. After a small-time grass buy, members of PANT made an early-morning raid on the home on March 5 worthy of Pablo Escobar Armed with a search warrant looking for Brian, the officers started breaking down Howell�s front door.
Awakened from a sound sleep, Howell thought someone was trying to break in. He grabbed a .45 semi-automatic pistol. Just as the door gave way, Howell fired impulsively. Luckily for everyone, the bullet didn�t hit anyone. The minute he realized the intruders were police, Howell dropped the gun and surrendered.
The officers, however, charged Howell with four counts of attempted murder, four counts of aggravated assault and one Class 6 felony count of discharging a firearm in the city limits.
Howell shouldn�t have fired the shot even in the face of overkill actions by the police, but he shouldn�t face anything more than a misdemeanor charge for that.
Judge Janis Sterling dismissed the attempted murder charges but allowed the others to stand. Howell has both personal injury and criminal attorneys advising him, and they sometimes have conflicting interests.
At any rate, Howell turned down an offer to plead guilty to the felony firearms discharge in return for the state dismissing the aggravated assault charges. None of this would have happened if PANT officers hadn�t decided on the raid, and he doesn�t deserve a felony record for their poor judgment.
It would be the right thing for Howell to take his medicine on the misdemeanor firearms discharge count and for the state to walk away grateful that the uncalled-for show of force didn�t lead to a worse outcome.
Instead, the county attorney has added four counts of endangerment to the charges.
Payback can be hell.
---------------------------------------
Howell files suit vs. PANT, officials
Thursday, January 08, 2004
PRESCOTT � Robert Howell, who has admitted he fired a shot at police officers as they entered his home in March 2003, has filed suit against a number of law enforcement officials and seven police officers.
The lawsuit comes four-plus months after Howell�s defense team, Anthony Shaw and Kenneth Ray, filed a $2 million notice of claim for damages that the defendant and his wife Patti allegedly suffered as a result of the incident. (See related story, Page 10A.) Howell
The claim, as well as the lawsuit, is against the Prescott Area Narcotics Task Force (PANT) management committee, which includes Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, police chiefs from nine police departments, Yavapai County Sheriff Buck Buchanan, Arizona Department of Public Safety Lt. James Gerard, and seven police officers who were assigned to PANT at the time of the incident.
�We are now moving on a civil case,� Shaw said, adding that they are in the beginning stages of discovery and deposition. �I�ve already sent my request to serve documents� related to PANT policy and training manuals, its procedures and intergovernmental agreement, Shaw added.
The lawsuit alleges that officers obtained a search warrant based on inadequate probable cause because �it was based upon an unreliable informant and insufficient and untrue facts obtained by (PANT officer Kel) Palguta.�
Based on that information, a judge issued a warrant for a search of Bryan Keith Kelly, who has never lived or resided in the plaintiff�s home, the complaint alleges.
In addition, the officers entered Howell�s home without proper knocking and announcing of police presence with a reasonable waiting period, the lawsuit states.
Not knowing who was breaking into his home because he, his wife Patti and their son were asleep, Howell fired a round in self defense and defense of property and family, the lawsuit states.
The officers then forcibly arrested Howell and detained his wife and their teen-age son and questioned them in a rough and hostile manner, which inflicted physical injuries, the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit spells out 10 different claims for relief including unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, assault and battery, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which the plaintiffs allegedly suffered as a result of the officers� conduct.
Shaw said the defendants� lawyers may call his client to give a deposition, but added that �He (Howell) has the right to take the Fifth (Amendment) so long as the criminal case is pending.�
Shaw said he doesn�t plan to call many witnesses to testify because he and Ray already interviewed a number of them when they gathered information for the criminal case.
Prescott City Attorney John Moffitt, who is representing Police Chief Robert Reed, Assistant Police Chief Dave Benner and former PANT Sgt. Pete Hodap, said �it is going to take a number of months of intensive discovery before we can make a call whether it is a valid case.�
�From what we can see in the lawsuit as well as the original claim, we do not think that our officers did anything wrong,� he added.
James Jellison and Larry Crown, attorneys from an insurance pool who are representing Polk, Buchanan and Prescott Valley Police Chief Dan Schatz, were unavailable for comment.
The defendants have 20 days from the day they receive the complaint to file their answer and 60 days to respond to the documents� request. Shaw said the defendants from the tri-city area were served on Dec. 30, while others received the complaint on Jan. 2.
---------------------------------
RileyMc - Heh. Apparently in Yavapai County, they can also illegally bust down your door over an ounce of pot.
liliysdad - Yeah, a controlled substance. Also known as a plant. The futile attempt to "control" which has plainly led to the destruction of civil rights, the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people who armed nobody, the diminishing respect for the law in the US, the unimaginable enrichment of foreign and domestic organized crime, and the waste of billions of dollars of your money and my money.
Frankly, I'm doubly impressed by Yavapai County. Not just that they upheld the 4th Amendment, but that the guy wasn't shot dead by the cops raiding his home.
liliysdad - Yeah, a controlled substance. Also known as a plant. The futile attempt to "control" which has plainly led to the destruction of civil rights, the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people who armed nobody, the diminishing respect for the law in the US, the unimaginable enrichment of foreign and domestic organized crime, and the waste of billions of dollars of your money and my money.
Frankly, I'm doubly impressed by Yavapai County. Not just that they upheld the 4th Amendment, but that the guy wasn't shot dead by the cops raiding his home.
Stand_Watie
Member
Ultimately the Yavapai county taxpayers are responsible for the behavior of their employees, and should be punished if that behavior is inappropriate. The taxpayers are responsible to make sure it doesn't happen again by punishing the employees appropriately.
I still am in the dark about exactly what "evidence" is being thrown out, but it is perfectly reasonable to shoot people who are breaking down your door, regardless of whether or not they are screaming "police", so if the evidence that is being thrown out is that he shot the people entering his residence, then that is perfectly appropriate.
I don't know if the police followed the proper procedure or not. If they didn't and were properly trained they should lose their jobs. If they weren't properly trained the Chief should lose his job. If there was intent to violate established procedure for search warrants, they should face criminal charges as well.
****
(Thanks to Nemesis for the link) We had one of these where a woman was kidnapped/tortured/murdered here in Dallas a couple years back.
http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProce...lates/Details.cfm&StoryID=3117&Section=Valley
August 16,2004
Travis Whitehead
The Monitor
MISSION — A man has died after intruders dressed as cops stormed into his home and beat him.
The intruders, wearing masks and police-style clothing and carrying weapons, busted into three homes about 10 p.m. Saturday on North Taylor Road near and 4 Mile Line Road, said Investigator Gus Acosta, of the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department. Once inside, they threw the occupants facedown on the floor and ransacked the homes, Acosta said.
One of the residents, an 82-year-old man, was transported to McAllen Medical Center where he died 9:40 a.m. Sunday. Acosta said he would not release the man’s name because officials had not yet notified his family.
Pseudocop robberies are a common occurrence, Acosta said, but they don’t usually result in someone’s death.
"This is unique, in a way, but the potential is always there," he said....
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
I'm surprised that he wasn't shot and killed, and I'm surprised that a huge cache of drugs didnt' "mysteriously" appear.
earthworm
Member
Any way you put it Howell's a** is grass.Speeding tickets for going one mile
over the posted limt,DUI hassles he weaves one inch while driving,property
tax reassessments,countless inspections if he has his own business....he may wish he'd taken the plea & gone to jail before it's over.
over the posted limt,DUI hassles he weaves one inch while driving,property
tax reassessments,countless inspections if he has his own business....he may wish he'd taken the plea & gone to jail before it's over.
Diggler
Member
Of course, they COULD have arrested him right then and there, and got the search warrant while on the property and everything would have gone well.
But what fun is that, right? Don't get to play with the cool weapons and such that way.
stevelyn
Member
All that over less than an ounce of green vegetable matter suspected to be marijuana.
At least in Alaska you have to have more than four ounces before you get your doors kicked in.
At least in Alaska you have to have more than four ounces before you get your doors kicked in.
In line with similar posts, maybe we should introduce a new concept..."suicide by home defender". In this case, luckily, we can more accurately call it "attempted suicide", since the bullet didn't connect, and the homeowner will not have to deal with the guilt of being forced to end an agressors' life.
Accordingly, whatever consequences of this incident will be determined by lawyers and judges in the appropriate courtroom. The question is: Will monetary sanctions be enough to cause the needed attitude adjustment, for overzealous cops who break the law? Looking at similar multi-million dollar lawsuits (Paul Childs case in Denver; John HIrko case in PA are two that come to mind), it seems that the offending cops (and their defending brethren) remain defiant, refusing to admit fault in light of huge fines; adverse decisions imposed by the legal system. What will it take, to prevent future incidents like this? Here's the perfect example of militarization of policing, thanks to the war on drugs.
Accordingly, whatever consequences of this incident will be determined by lawyers and judges in the appropriate courtroom. The question is: Will monetary sanctions be enough to cause the needed attitude adjustment, for overzealous cops who break the law? Looking at similar multi-million dollar lawsuits (Paul Childs case in Denver; John HIrko case in PA are two that come to mind), it seems that the offending cops (and their defending brethren) remain defiant, refusing to admit fault in light of huge fines; adverse decisions imposed by the legal system. What will it take, to prevent future incidents like this? Here's the perfect example of militarization of policing, thanks to the war on drugs.
- Status
