Medford and Jackson County law enforcement agencies describe their procedures.
Last week body camera footage of a no-knock search warrant circulated on the news. Minneapolis police officers burst into a room at a pre-dawn hour shouting "police" and "get on the fucking floor." A man was lying on a sofa wrapped in blankets near the front door. He was apparently sleeping with or near a gun and was holding it when police saw him emerge from the blankets. Police saw him and shot him. It took place in ten seconds, start to finish. The video below repeats the entire event three times, twice in slow motion, once real time. Watch:
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_8PfwHP9I8 |
That was Minneapolis. Not Southern Oregon.
1. Searches are done during daylight.
2. Searches "knock and announce." Police arrive at the scene with marked police cars and flashing lights. They ring doorbells, knock on doors, and announce themselves. They give "reasonable" time for a person at the search site to come to the door. The goal is for people at the search site to be certain the people demanding entry are in fact the police.
3. When searching a place with a known dangerous person inside, they employ a "surround and call out" procedure. Police monitor back exits and other escapes routes.
4. Search officers are in uniform.
5. They wear body cameras.
6. They show up in force. The number of officers depend on the situation but six officers are common. They appear at the site with guns in the "low, ready" position, which means guns are exposed, drawn, and pointed down.
8. A supervisor is present.
This is both goal and practice, according to the public information officers of both agencies. Reality on the ground and in the moment may require something different, and errors sometime occur. Sometimes searches are done at night if there is a hostage situation or some other exigent matter. Night searches take a special court order.
The City of Medford representative attempted to distinguish local searches from the one in Minneapolis, and emphasized the careful controls on searches here. The Jackson County Sergeant representing the department immediately told me that the department has no comment on the Minneapolis search. He said Jackson County has procedures in place to carry out a legal and safe search, but that every search situation was different. He cautioned I should not pin the department down with details on how searches were done, lest I "trap" the department by creating false expectations. Still, the descriptions of both City and County searches were essentially the same, as described above.
My overall impression from both City and County is that both search officers and the public experience a higher level of safety than we saw in Minneapolis. The goal in searches here isn't surprise.The goal is to have the people at the searched location know that police are there in force and that they have a job to carry out. Resistance would be dangerous, pointless, and illegal. A citizen would have time and clear evidence to understand this reality. A Southern Oregon citizen is not going to be awakened at night, surprised by an invading burst of people shouting multiple commands. No need to grab a gun.
13 comments:
Democrats should be the law and order party. Against crime, inappropriate policing, law breaking behavior from both political parties. Put some attention toward homelessness and spend some money attempting to minimize it. That means assisting mental health services, drug addiction programs, and personnel whether it be police or some version of it. Accuse the Republicans of being for crime and lawlessness.
Good info. What I'd be curious to know is the criteria that these agencies use to issue search warrants in the first place. What offenses demand raids? How much intel and surveillance prior to establish probable cause, etc? Also, what percentage of cases are deemed unlawful afterwards?
Of course, all these good intentions could be undone with one officer making a split second decision to shoot. Is it a matter of when, not if?
We all have seen reports about the increasing militarization of police forces, and the use of SWAT tactics. Is the money spent justified, or could it be better used for prevention? It's necessary to enforce laws and insure public safety, but policing becomes self-fulfilling unless the causes of crime are addressed with equal fervor. While Regressives would simply condemn all who commit crimes as being irredeemably immoral, the facts are that mental illness, lack of education, addiction and economic oppression are just as responsible for law breaking as satanic possession.
One place to start would be to remove the profit incentive for incarceration.
"Accuse the Republicans of being for crime and lawlessness."
That's not a wild accusation. It's a fact, evident by the RNC labeling the armed insurrectionists who attacked our nation's Capitol "ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse”
Tangentially related is the murder by Eagle Point police in a local Burger King a short handful of years back of a schizophrenic man (on medication, lived with family). The whole thing was on video. The whole thing. DA chose to exonerate and courts awarded a huge settlement.
It did not get the attention it deserved.
One good way to lower the potential for searches going disastrously wrong would be to eliminate the “war on drugs.“ Legalize all of them and put the money into treatment and prevention instead.
It’s my body. It’s my decision what drugs to put into it. I don’t need the government telling me what to do.
Dave--
You see from Rick's rather overheated projections why Democrats cannot possibly be the party of law and order. The subtext of strawman usage like "irredeemable", "oppression" and "satanic" is that many Democrats indulge as a scarcely rebuttable presumption that crime is the product of societal victimhood, something that essentially happens TO criminals more than something they do with autonomous moral agency. Never mind that the vast majority of people even in supposed "oppressed" groups somehow summon the will never to commit any crimes ever. Best to demonize police, you see, and idealize the fractional "representative" outliers. Yeah, that's the ticket. That's really worked in our major cities in the last couple of years.
Rick--
The "criteria that these agencies use to issue search warrants in the first place"?
That would be "probable cause". It's right there in the Fourth Amendment. Judges review and sign off first.
Because legalizing marijuana has worked so well, right?
Low Dudgeon –
Are you suggesting that Republicans have more of a claim to being “pro law and order””? Seriously? The party that beat Capitol police with American flags? The same party that wanted to lock up Hillary for using an insecure email server and remains conspicuously silent about Trump stealing Top Secret documents from the White House?
Let’s face it: both parties are full of it, but Republicans are by far the biggest hypocrites. Of course, that’s changing as they increasingly abandon all pretense of caring about democracy or the rule of law.
Sally--
With respect, there was no "murder" by police in Eagle Point. At most it was negligent homicide, though certainly wrongful death on the civil liability side, as you noted. Admittedly, though, that Minnesota jury did lay first degree manslaughter on police officer Kim Potter for mistaking her gun for her taser. Even that is well short of murder--intentional/purposive unlawful killing. Words and definitions are very important in these fraught times.
Mic,
The current problem with marijuana is that the legal part of the market is so regulated that there’s still room for a black market. We don’t have this kind of problem with alcohol.
Low Dudgeon, appreciate the response. Did you watch the entire video? From the beginning through the entirety of the bathroom scene (that never should have happened) and the virtual torture of his body for several minutes outside at the end?
I understand your legal parsing, but I will call it a murder, and the takeaway is “never get between a cop and his ego.”
That so-called police officer kept his job, too.
Sally—
No, I did not, and point well taken that seeing the evidence should be a prerequisite to credible opining. I just meant that I heard or read nothing to suggest police intended to take the young man’s life.
@Low Dudgeon
Appreciate the honest response.
My husband refused to watch it. I watched it more than once.
Never should have happened from start to finish. Two-bit cop in a ten-cent town.
If the victim had been a different race, or the venue a different place, might have been a whole ‘nother outcry.
Regardless, I use the term murder without reservation. (And I generally support the police. Not this time, not even close.)
Post a Comment