United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Murder Woman’s Three Dogs, Shooting One Through a Locked Door — To Look for Pot
Source:
Free Thought Project/Dailyu News
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/i- ... -cannabis/#T7WwMaO2T5HyyBFJ.99
Published: May 28, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-05-28 18:26:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 19558
Comments: 118
Detroit, MI — Three of Detroit’s finest, Officer Gaines, Officer Paul, and Officer Morrison, are named in a recent lawsuit after they entered a woman’s home, hunted down her dogs, and murdered them all. The officers were serving a search warrant in search of one of the most beneficial plants on the planet which is currently outlawed in the state of Michigan. After cops murdered all the dogs, they came to the owner of the home, Nikita Smith, and said, “I should have killed you too,” according to the lawsuit. According to Smith, when the cops came to the door to tell her they had a warrant to look for marijuana, she asked them if she could secure the dogs. Smith put two dogs in the basement and locked one in the bathroom. But the fact that the dogs were secured, did not matter to these cruel officers. “They went around and killed them. Like a death squad,” Smith’s lawyer Chris Olson told the Daily News on Thursday. As the Daily News reports: After officers entered the home, one of the dogs was able to get out of the basement, and harmlessly sat next to Smith. As Smith reached for the dog, officers shot the animal “multiple times,” the lawsuit charges. Smith watched from less than 10 feet away as the dog, named Debo, died on the floor. Three officers then went to the basement and fatally shot a dog named Mama, who was pregnant. Mama was quiet and not attacking the cops at the time, according to the lawsuit. When the sadistic cops found the last dog in the bathroom, according to the suit, they discussed if they should kill it or not. It was locked in a bathroom. “Should we do that one too?” one cop asked. “Yes,” replied the other as Officer Gaines and Officer Paul opened fire, shooting through the door multiple times killing the dog on the other side, named Smoke. “Did you see that? I got that one good!” Officer Gaines said as he laughed, according to the lawsuit. According to Smith, after the officers killed all of her dogs, one of them walked up to her and said, “I should have killed you too.” Then, another officer told her, “you could have been killed.” Pictures from the scene show Smith’s home riddled with bullet holes. They also show the tragically brutal aftermath of Smoke flailing around the bathroom as officers shot through the door. Blood quite literally painted the walls. “I couldn’t believe my eyes,” Olson said. Cops incorrectly believed that Smith’s home was a drug house and during the raid, they found only marijuana. “They had a warrant to search the house,” Olson said. “That we don’t really quarrel with. But when you search the house, you can’t go in the house and kill all the dogs.” Smith was arrested on charges of possession of marijuana — a misdemeanor. For possessing a plant, police officers felt it was just to break into Smith’s home, kill her dogs, kidnap her, and throw her in a cage — and this is called ‘Justice’ in the land of the free. The charges against Smith, however, were later thrown out as the cops who broke into her home and murdered her dogs never bothered to show up to court. Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells, save the lives of countless epileptic children, treat PTSD, heal bones, treat brain trauma, and a slew of other uses science is only beginning to understand. And yet, the only thing dangerous about this seemingly miraculous plant is that police will kidnap, cage, or kill you or your pets for possessing it. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-78) not displayed.
.
.
.
#79. To: Gatlin (#75)
I notice you didn't even try to deny the factoid I posted. Attaboy! How do you determine cops acted improperly simply by reading an article someone wrote after reading another about an incident?
I don’t know what the cop cult worshipers would say, but I personally say the mother should have been arrested for leaving a child LOCKED in a bathroom with a PIT BULL. And the cops in the scenario under discussion - what should happen to them? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I give no credence to gross exaggerations and implied charges.
Here's two more mainstream accounts of the same story. The problem is - you won't believe those either. Detroit police accused of needlessly killing dogs while searching house A couple of comments - Jennifer Martinez I would assume neither guilt nor innocence. There should be a thorough and impartial investigation conducted either internally or by the Sheriff's Department. The departmental protocol should be evaluated. If the protocol was wrong or inadequate with respect to directions, then it should be immediately corrected.. If the cops violated departmental protocol at the time of the incident, they should be disciplined. How severely? I would need further information to say. Termination would be a paramount consideration. If the cops violated the law, they should be charged and brought to trial. If found guilty, then termination would be automatic. If protocol was wrong or violated and/or if a law was broken … a public apology should be issued and full restitution for damages. plus punitive dames awarded. That would be my course of action based on what information I can objectively gleen at this time.. I don’t think I missed anything. What would you do?
If the cops have a warrant to search the house, why didn't she temporarily leash the dogs outside? Putting the dogs in areas where the cops are going to search is pointless.
Here's two more mainstream accounts of the same story. The problem is - you won't believe those either. So your answer to my question is that you would read TWO MORE mainstream accounts of the same story and base your JUDGMENT of the events solely on three mainstream accounts of the story … is this correct? I assume it is, because I can read your statement no other way. You say three stories in the mainstream media … eh? Okay, I will cover that and raise you with 10 compelling reasons you can never trust the mainstream media. (Let’s concede that I can in order to save time and space … I assure you that I can). Let’s look at “Fair and Balanced” Fox News to find that a recently released analysis by PunditFact revealed that out of every statement made by a Fox News host or guest, over half of them were completely false. What’s more, only 8% percent could even be considered “completely true.” So, now tell me again, that you are willing to believe three mainstream accounts of the same story … and I will tell you that I will question the validity in all three.
Putting the dogs in areas where the cops are going to search is pointless. Pointless? Maybe not, could have been a strategic deployment of the three pit bulls (assuming the other two were also pit bulls) by the pothead to protect her stash.
Seriously? First you rag on FTP and Matt Agorist, claiming they are biased. I give you two more sources, and you still remain adamant in your defense of these psychopaths? What would it take - a confession from the cops themselves? Looks to me like they've already done that. All charges were dropped against Nikita Smith, the cops never showed up in court. And once again I repeat - these cops were in NO DANGER from any of these dogs! Yet you continue to defend their actions. You sick son of a bitch. More ignorant assumptions from LF's leading purveyor of bullshit. The charges were dropped against Smith. Look - I know EXACTLY how your sick mind works. Potheads deserve to have their dogs killed by cops. You fucking drug warriors are insane and a scourge on America. I can't wait for the day when you or one of the other cop-worshipers ends up getting raided by SWAT. Oh - that's right, you're a law-abiding citizen. Tough shit. You think that will matter to the cops when they mistakenly raid your house because of sloppy or careless police work? Don't expect any sympathy from me when that happens. But your approval isn’t something I need or want and you don’t speak for everyone. I was contacted through an intermediary sent by Stone tp personally ask me to return to LF and resume posting. I gracefully accepted the invitation in the spirit it was offered and returned. I am happy to be back and I believe that Stone is satisfied that I have returned. So, you are definitely out of order when you suggest that I “Fuck Off” and leave LF. I will not do so and I plan to stay as long as Stone, our host, accepts me. I will go on now to discuss your attempt to stifle my freedom to comment on LF. It is the unassailable truth as I speak from the “high ground” of tolerance and say that I have a right to my opinions and I have been given permission to post those opinions. If you don’t like my opinions, then you can ignore them by not clicking on my comments or place me on the “Bozo” in the setup tab. Thank you in advance for your anticipated understanding.
It was no assumption, it was a presumption … the difference can be subtle, and difficult for your untrained mind to understand. No, potheads do not deserve to have their dogs killed by cops or anyone else. The main reason a cop makes the decision to shoot a dog is due to a perceived threat from that animal. When a cop shoots someone’s dog, it deeply affects the dog’s human family, as well as the officer, the neighborhood, and the community. People can protect their dogs by protecting the officers, that should be simple enough for even your stressed cop-hating mind to understand. The procedures to protect dogs are simple: Follow all leash laws, and keep dogs away from law enforcement during neighborhood searches, 911 calls and searches authorized by warrants.. I will not waste time to comment on the other gibberish in your contemptuous post showing disdain with an attempt to be scornful and disrespectful..
I never suggested that you "leave LF". But it certainly would not bother me if you did. As to "being out of order", I guess you think you were "in order" when you called me "asshole" ? TS! " If you don’t like my opinions, then you can ignore them by not clicking on my comments or place me on the “Bozo” in the setup tab. " I will do that, and suggest you do the same! arrivederci sarge. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
You see ole Debo pictured there? Debo was one of three of Nikita Smith's dogs that were killed. After officers entered the home, one of the dogs was able to get out of the basement, and harmlessly sat next to Smith. [...] [Smith's lawyer Chris ] Olson said Smith had done everything correctly in her effort to secure the dogs, yet the officers still "went around and killed them." Smith's lawyer says Smith had done everything correctly to secure the dogs. And yet, after they were supposedly secured, one of the pit bulls magically appeared sitting next to Smith, harmlessly. Sitting unrestrained next to the owner is not restrained and is not harmless. And then there is the police report. https://www.scribd.com/doc/313964609/Nikita-Smith-vs-City-of-Detroit-Police Nikita Smith v City of Detroit et al, MIED 2-16-11882 (25 May 2016) COMPLAINT https://www.scribd.com/doc/313964688/Nikita-Smith-vs-City-of-Detroit-Exhibits-1-2 Nikita Smith v City of Detroit et al, MIED 2-16-11882 (25 May 2016) (EXHIBITS) 1 of 2 https://www.scribd.com/doc/313964730/Nikita-Smith-vs-City-of-Detroit-Exhibits-2-2 Nikita Smith v City of Detroit et al, MIED 2-16-11882 (25 May 2016) (EXHIBITS) 2 of 2 From Detroit Police Department Arrest Report of 14 January 2016:
I will not place you on bozo because I find your greater belief in the unproven and/or unprovable aspects of cop-hating articles coupled with your lesser degree of intellectual curiosity interesting. I an actually fascinated by your vivacity and it makes you a great comedic actor because you join in with Bucky and Deckard to attack cops with with their same endless energy. In fact, your posts are a mirror of Bucky’s posts. You have copied his style and mimicked his choice of descriptive adjectives.
From Detroit Police Department Arrest Report of 14 January 2016 tell a much different story that the Free Thought Project article by Matt Agorist : I guess it is a question now of whom do you wish to believe, Smith or all the members of the Detroit PD Narcotics Team. Thanks to nolu chan … you now have a choice.
Thank You ... Thank You.
Looks like you are making up shit there sarge. Not very truthful! Not a sign of " an intelligent person with general cognitive problem- solving skills ". More like a BSer, making up lies !
You're welcome. According to Matt Agorist: But the fact that the dogs were secured, did not matter to these cruel officers. A half-dozen cops show up with a warrant to search an alleged drug den. The lady of the house answers their knock at the door, tells them she has three dogs, and asks if it is ok if she secures the dogs. Presumably, they allow her to do this unaccompanied and return to tell them that it is safe and to invite them in for tea and crumpets. In the Complaint at 4: 18. Plaintiffs other dog, Smoke, was sequestered in the bathroom with the door closed. 19. Defendant police officers next entered the residence without permission. 20. Plaintiffs’ dog Debo got past the obstruction from the basement and sat next to Plaintiff Nikita Smith. If one assumes the cops accompanied and supervised her in securing the dogs, the cops permitted her to leave the dogs free running in the basement, with an undescribed obstruction that would not obstruct a pitbull. And the harmless pitbull proceeded to, apparently noiselessly, overcome the undescribed obstacle, and sit by its owner's side, interrupting the tea and crumpets. If one assumes the cops accompanied and supervised her in securing the dogs, the cops watched approvingly as she, without explanation, put two dogs in the basement and one in the bathroom. Or, there was evidence of gunshots left behind and she had to come up with some explanation for how the supposedly secured dogs were shot — one in the living room, one in the bathroom and one in the basement. If the cops did not supervise her securing the dogs, that is the damnedest police work ever on a drug search. Can I secure the dogs? Of course, ma'am, take your time, destroy all the evidence you can, and let us know when it is safe to enter. Thank you for your cooperation. And darn, they had a warrant and entered without permission after the dogs were "sequestered."
It's entirely possible that Nikita Smith lied. It is also entirely possible that ALL members of the Detroit PD Narcotics Squad lied. I am not prepared to say who lied ... but obviously, someone did. You read the article and now you have read the police report. Do you stand by your statement "the cops were wrong, and everyone here knows it?"
And darn, they had a warrant and entered without permission after the dogs were "sequestered." I had the same reaction. My intuition told me all along that article stinks to high Heaven and smacked of a pseudo-journalist on a mission to prove an agenda. Matt wrote an article based on the information he read in anther article. I'm sure that you have noticed this is common practice. One reporter will publish something and a multitude of other reporters will parrot it like they are the original source. That was why I had to laugh when Deckard posted two additional sources and told me they said the same thing as the article posted here.
Nor I. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thank you. All I tried to do on the thread was question the veracity of the article. Nowhere did I ever say, or even suggest, the cops were right. Yet, I was repeatedly accused of defending the cops. I believe that cops who violate protocol need to be held accountable and disciplinary or corrective action taken. While cops who break the law must be tried and convicted in a court of law. Trying and convicting cops on hearsay evidence, second hand information and the biased opinions that are presented in these cop-hating articles has now become an Internet sport to some.
And once again I repeat - these cops were in NO DANGER from any of these dogs! They are definitely biased. They did they not publish the police report to present the cops side of the incident. That would definitely be the unbiased thing to do ... intelligent minds would agree. Either Nikita Smith is lying of the entire narc team is lying. Publish both sides and let the readers have access to all information available.
Proven to be a lie by both Smith's lawyer and the cops. If one point is proven to be a lie ... then you should question the validity of all other points.
I guess it is a question now of whom do you wish to believe, Smith or all the members of the Detroit PD Narcotics Let's see. There's a free-running pitbull in the house, but when they knocked on the door they got no response. Was the vicious pitbull not interested in the strangers at the front door? But then they forced entry, and THEN the pitbull finally noticed them and charged. How much sense does that make? Okay then "simultaneously" a dog then decided to charge from the bathroom. Why did this dog also wait to charge, not responding when the police announced their presense, choosing instead to sit in the bathroom until well after the first shots were fired. And then lets look at the photo, and tell me this amount of blood in the bath room was from shooting the dog after it had "charged from the bathoom". The photo also shows damage in the bathroom door, but certainly that was not from a shotgun at long range. We can also note that the police report give so mention of threat from the dog in the basement, only that they found it and killed it. No reason is given why. So, who do I believe? Based on all the info, the police report doesn't add up as well. The bathroom photo is the most compelling evidence. It should be very easy to prove whether the bathroom door was opened or closed at the time the police shot that dog. That would show who's lying, whether it be all the police at the scene, or Smith. If all the police have is each other swearing it happened like they said, I'd say that's not worth crap. Maybe Smith really *is* lying. Or maybe instead, the police are lying.
Pinguinite: Or maybe, both Smith and the police are lying. Then maybe Matt Agorist is presenting half truths. Or maybe instead, all three parties are lying, stating lies by others or presenting half truths. Matt Agorist wrote: From the lawsuit: 17.A Next, Plaintiff Nikita Smith placed two of her dogs, Debo and Mama, in the basement and blocked the entryway to the basement. 18.A Plaintiffs other dog, Smoke, was sequestered in the bathroom with the door closed. [The lawyer did not specify the door was locked]. Maybe Matt Agorist misreported. Or maybe instead, Smith’s lawyer is lying. Matt Agorist reported: From the police report: From the lawsuit: Maybe Matt Agorist is wrong. Maybe the narc team is lying, Or maybe instead, Smith’s lawyer is lying. Pinguinite: It is unclear where the gray pitt bull was located or what the pitt bull was doing a the time of the knock. Smith’s lawyer stated that Mama, the pitbull in the basement was not barking. It is unclear if Debo, the gray pitt bull was barking or standing silently waiting for the door to open. Pinguinite: How much sense does that make? It is unclear that the pitbull had not already noticed them and was standing silently inside the living room and charged the officers when they opened the door. How much sense does that make? Pinguinite: How can a dog “simultaneously” charge and at the same time “wait to charge?” If the black Rottweiler were simultaneously charging from the bathroom with the gray pitt bull charging from the living room, there was no waiting. This makes no sense … to me. I could continue. But in doing so, I would only be showing that we have moved into asking hypothetical questions and posing hypothetical answers and solutions. Speculation does nothing but speculate. So, it is as you said: Which is exactly what I said before you: It is as you say: All this leaves me with a question, since the PD report was available, why did Matt Agrost choose not to present the statements by the narc team and only present the statements made by Smith. Was his failure to state “the dogs” were two pit bulls and a Rottweiler an omission or a commission to cover up and tone down any possible severity of “the dogs? These are questions that will go unanswered, as will many others. What should be proven at this point, is that nothing has been proven. Everything still remains allegations, by all parties, and pure speculation by some posters because the facts of this incident are not known.
I missed this one. Pinguinite: The police report: Merriam-Webster Simple Definition of vicious:
Drug dealers, all Puckards hero's, commonly use pit bulls as meat shields from LE as defense of their crack houses. Aside from the drug charges, the criminal scumbag should be charged with felony animal abuse when LE is forced to dispatch these animals that are USED by scumbags.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Dog Control: Pit bulls used to protect drug dealers. The city of Binghamton said an increasing number of drug dealers use pit bulls to attack its police force, and City Council is looking to stop it.
I know many Binghamton PD officers and Johnson City Officers. I did my share of training in that area. In my 20, I'm very use to scumbags USING dogs to protect their illegal activity. Puckard speaks from his ass and only knows the yella Shit he reads. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Makes sense now why the cops never bothered to show up in court and the charges were dropped. After filing a misleading (to say the least) police report, the dog-killers realized that they would have to commit perjury when called to testify in court. Guess they figured they'd cut their losses. Oh well, they still got to kill three non-threatening dogs without being punished or disciplined for it. I bet they laughed it up at the bar with their buddies when telling the story of their "bravery". In case you missed it - all the charges were dropped. ...the criminal scumbag should be charged with felony animal abuse when LE is forced to dispatch these animals that are USED by scumbags. In this case (as in so many others) the LE are the criminal scumbags who callously and sadistically Maybe in the United States Supreme Puckard Court (USSPC) what you say is proof beyond a reasonable doubt... but here on LF, it's opinion formed by 3rd party yella journalism. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The asshole liberal Paultards do not have opinions ... they have predetermined commitments and look to post any article that reinforces their predetermined commitments. Stupid ... they are just so stupid.
Perhaps it was not worth the bother. The 2007 Tan Grand Prix was forfeited. I do not see any mention of fighting the forfeiture. http://www.waynecounty.com/prosecutor/ Welcome to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. At the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, we are committed to achieving justice for our cities most vulnerable residents. We will work tirelessly to hold offenders accountable, protect victims and we innovate to break the cycle of violence. Our website will provide you with valuable information about our office programs and resources as well as your rights should you have the misfortune to be the victim of a crime. We regularly update press releases and other information on the web site so check for changes. The Wayne County Prosecutor is the lawyer for the people, an elected official who is elected every four years. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office prosecutes felony cases throughout Wayne County. My staff of over 180 assistant prosecuting attorneys, 24 investigators and 70 clerical and non lawyers support staff prosecute over 52% of all felony cases in Michigan. Forbes Magazine recently named Detroit as the most violent city in America. Our office is one of the 10th largest by case load in America and yet our staff is miniscule compared to offices like Los Angeles who enjoy a staff of over 2,200 or even Philadelphia who employ over 600 people. I am proud of our record and the miracles that we accomplish everyday. Kym L. Worthy
It is sort of notorious. In review, COMPLAINT at 3-4: 13. Only Plaintiff Nikita Smith was present at the residence at that time. 14. When Detroit Police officers knocked on the door, Plaintiff Nikita Smith said to the police officers, “let me put my dogs down in the basement.” 15. Thus, Defendants knew prior to entry that Plaintiffs’ dogs were present on the property and that Plaintiff Nikita Smith was going to sequester them. 16. Therefore, Defendants’ dogs were no surprise to Defendants because Plaintiff Nikita Smith told them she was going to “put my dogs in the basement.” 17. Next, Plaintiff Nikita Smith placed two of her dogs, Debo and Mama, in the basement and blocked the entryway to the basement. 18. Plaintiffs other dog, Smoke, was sequestered in the bathroom with the door closed. 19. Defendant police officers next entered the residence without permission. 20. Plaintiffs’ dog Debo got past the obstruction from the basement and sat next to Plaintiff Nikita Smith. Paragraph 14 indicates Nikita Smith said to the police officers, "let me put my dogs down in the basement." Paragraph 16 indicates the dogs were no surprise to the officers "because Smith told them she was going to 'put my dogs in the basement.'" Paragraph 18 indicates one dog, Smoke, was sequestered in the bathroom with the door closed, not in the basement as was her alleged statement of intent to police per paragraphs 14 and 16. Paragraph 15 indicates the officers knew prior to entry that "Nikita Smith was going to sequester" her three dogs. In fact, the officers could only know that they were at a suspected drug den and a suspect said she was going to put her dogs in the basement, something she did not do. One dog was not placed in the basement but in the bathroom. The other two were not securely sequestered in the basement. Paragraph 20 provides evidence that the two dogs allegedly in the basement were not effectively secured. Paragraph 12 indicates that not less than six officers arrived to serve the search warrant. Paragraph 19 indicates that only after Smith allegedly put one dog in the bathroom and failed to secure two other dogs in the basement, did the officers enter the premises. Paragraph 19 indicates that the officers entered the residence "without permission." The officers were authorized to enter the premises without the permission of the owner or resident. They were authorized to break and enter if the door was not opened for them. The Arrest Report indicates that a narcotic Search Warrant was executed and after non-response from inside, forced entry was made into the location. The entry team encountered vicious dogs which they killed and they established command of the scene. As a narcotic search warrant had been issued by, "a neutral and detached magistrate had found probable cause to believe that the law was being violated in that house, and had authorized a substantial invasion of the privacy of the persons who resided there." (Michigan v. Summers) The police would have been justified in detaining Smith in handcuffs. (Muehler v Mena) The law enforcement officers' first job after entry is to establish absolute command of the scene. It is not to send an unsupervised suspect meandering about the area to be searched. She could have been destroying evidence or retrieving an automatic weapon, or she might have a dozen armed felons in the basement. That is not standard procedure. They were serving a narcotic search warrant which contains inherent danger. This is where the Complaint fails the giggle test. According to the police, as soon as they were through with the dogs, they detained Nikita Smith. There was no unsupervised meandering about the premises. They took command of the scene as quickly as possible. That would be standard procedure. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/452/692/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) Opinion of the Court at 701: (footnotes omitted) Opinion of the Court at 702-704: (footnotes omitted) It is also appropriate to consider the nature of the articulable and individualized suspicion on which the police base the detention of the occupant of a home subject to a search warrant. We have already noted that the detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant. The existence of a search warrant, however, also provides an objective justification for the detention. A judicial officer has determined that police have probable cause to believe that someone in the home is committing a crime. Thus, a neutral magistrate, rather than an officer in the field, has made the critical determination that the police should be given a special authorization to thrust themselves into the privacy of a home. The connection of an occupant to that home gives the police officer an easily identifiable and certain basis for determining that suspicion of criminal activity justifies a detention of that occupant. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/93/opinion.html Muehler v Mena, 544 US 93 (2005) Respondent Iris Mena was detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises that she and several others occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises. She sued the officers under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, and the District Court found in her favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation. Mena v. Simi Valley, 332 F. 3d 1255 (CA9 2003). We hold that Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search was consistent with our opinion in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), and that the officers’ questioning during that detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. [...] In Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), we held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Id., at 705. Such detentions are appropriate, we explained, because the character of the additional intrusion caused by detention is slight and because the justifications for detention are substantial. Id., at 701–705. We made clear that the detention of an occupant is “surely less intrusive than the search itself,” and the presence of a warrant assures that a neutral magistrate has determined that probable cause exists to search the home. Id., at 701. Against this incremental intrusion, we posited three legitimate law enforcement interests that provide substantial justification for detaining an occupant: “preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers”; and facilitating “the orderly completion of the search,” as detainees’ “self-interest may induce them to open locked doors or locked containers to avoid the use of force.” Id., at 702–703. Mena’s detention was, under Summers, plainly permissible. An officer’s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the “quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.” Id., at 705, n. 19. Thus, Mena’s detention for the duration of the search was reasonable under Summers because a warrant existed to search 1363 Patricia Avenue and she was an occupant of that address at the time of the search. Inherent in Summers’ authorization to detain an occupant of the place to be searched is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396 (1989) (“Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it”). Indeed, Summers itself stressed that the risk of harm to officers and occupants is minimized “if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” 452 U. S., at 703. The officers’ use of force in the form of handcuffs to effectuate Mena’s detention in the garage, as well as the detention of the three other occupants, was reasonable because the governmental interests outweigh the marginal intrusion. See Graham, supra, at 396–397. The imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage.[Footnote 2] The detention was thus more intrusive than that which we upheld in Summers. See 452 U. S., at 701–702 (concluding that the additional intrusion in the form of a detention was less than that of the warrant-sanctioned search); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 413–414 (1997) (concluding that the additional intrusion from ordering passengers out of a car, which was already stopped, was minimal). [...] The Court of Appeals also determined that the officers violated Mena’s Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention. 332 F. 3d, at 1264–1266. This holding, it appears, was premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigration status because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event. But the premise is faulty. We have “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434 (1991); see also INS v. Delgado, 466 U. S. 210, 212 (1984). “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Bostick, supra, at 434–435 (citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status. [...]
Ugh! I wasn't going to chime in, but what the hell. You don’t know the reason the cops never showed up in court. You ain’t no fuckin’ Sherlock Holmes master sleuth with great proficiency observation, knowledge of forensic science, and seasoned in logical reasoning that borders on the fantastic … you are just a piss ant file clerk in a local TV station in Michigan. The odds of you deducting the reason the cops did not show up is impossible to none, so stop making your asinine assumptions. There are a zillion and one reasons cops don’t show up, and it's almost always the fault of the procedural mechanisms in the court system … not the cops.
Nothing else needs to be said. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#80. To: Stoner (#77)
I do not like cops that act improperly.
#81. To: Gatlin, Stoner, Deckard (#78)
'And what if a child had been on the other side of the door, with the dog. I guess to the cop cult worshipers, " that would have been too bad. The child should not have been there. "'
#82. To: Deckard (#79)
#83. To: Gatlin, Stoner, ConservingFreedom (#80)
How do you determine cops acted improperly simply by reading an article someone wrote after reading another about an incident?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#84. To: ConservingFreedom (#81)
And the cops in the scenario under discussion - what should happen to them?
#85. To: Deckard (#0)
#86. To: Deckard, Stoner, ConservingFreedom (#83)
(Edited)
How do you determine cops acted improperly simply by reading an article someone wrote after reading another about an incident?
#87. To: misterwhite (#85)
If the cops have a warrant to search the house, why didn't she temporarily leash the dogs outside?
#88. To: Gatlin (#86)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#89. To: Gatlin (#87)
(Edited)
Maybe not, could have been a strategic deployment of the three pit bulls (assuming the other two were also pit bulls) by the pothead to protect her stash.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#90. To: Stoner, A K A Stone (#77)
Sarge, you are the asshole here, and everyone knows it.
You can have your opinion about me. This site was much more enjoyable before you came back. FO
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I will not “Fuck Off.”
#91. To: Deckard (#89)
#92. To: Gatlin, A K A Stone (#90)
" you are definitely out of order when you suggest that I “Fuck Off” and leave LF."
#93. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#73)
Then go to paragraph in the article and click on the Daily News on Thursday link.
When the officers showed up at the Detroit home where Smith and Kevin Thomas live in January to execute a search warrant, they were told by Smith there were three dogs present. Smith then put two of the dogs in the basement, and locked the third one in the bathroom, according to the lawsuit. Thomas was not home at the time.
C- MEMEBERS OF MVS CODE 2979 MADE ABOVE LOCATION TO EXCEUTE NARCOTIC SEARCH WARRANT. ENTRY TEAM ANNOUNCED PRESENCE AND PURPOSE AND WITH NO RESPONSE FROM INSIDE FORCED ENTRY WAS MADE INTO THE LOCATION. P.O. MORRISON ENCOUNTERED A VICIOUS GRAY PITBULL AT THE FRONT DOOR AT WHICH TIME HE FIRED HIS DEPT ISSUED SHOTGUN STRIKING THE DOG. ENTRY TEAM ENTERED THE LOCATION AT WHICH TIME THE SAME PITBULL CHARGED AT P.O. [REDACTED], P.O. [REDACTED] FIRED 7 SHOTS FROM HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED HANDGUN AT THE PITBULL, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. SIMULTANIOUSLY A VICIOUS BLACK DOG CHARGED AT P.O. [REDACTED] FROM THE BATHROOM. P.O. [REDACTED] FIRED THREE SHOTS FROM HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED SHOTGUN, P.O. PAUL AND P.O. GAINES FIRED ONE SOT FROM TEIR DEPARTMENT ISSUED HANGGUNS, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. P.O. [REDACTED] ENCOUNTERED A VICIOUS WHITE PITBULL IN THE BASEMENT AND FIRED HIS DEPARTMENT APROVED SHOTGUN 5 TIMES, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. AFTER THE HOUSE WAS DECLARED SAFE, CREW DETAINED NIKITA SMITH IN THE DINING ROOM. P.O. [REDACTED] RECOVERED BELOW LISTED MARIJUANA FROM THE KITCHEN STOVE TOP AND PLACED IN EVIDENCE. SGT [REDACTED] RECOVERED THE BELOW LISTED MARIJUANA FROM NE BEDROOM CLOSET, SGT [REDACTED] FORFEITED BELOW LISTED VEHICLE TO 2121 FORT STREET, TOWED BY V&F CONTROL #NW23053. MRS SMITH WAS ARRESTED AND CONVEYED TO DDC WITHOUT INCIDENT.
#94. To: Stoner (#92)
#95. To: Stoner, Deckard, Buckeroo, Justified, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, GrandIsland, BobCeleste, misterwhite, nolu chan (#93)
C- MEMEBERS OF MVS CODE 2979 MADE ABOVE LOCATION TO EXCEUTE NARCOTIC SEARCH WARRANT. ENTRY TEAM ANNOUNCED PRESENCE AND PURPOSE AND WITH NO RESPONSE FROM INSIDE FORCED ENTRY WAS MADE INTO THE LOCATION. P.O. MORRISON ENCOUNTERED A VICIOUS GRAY PITBULL AT THE FRONT DOOR AT WHICH TIME HE FIRED HIS DEPT ISSUED SHOTGUN STRIKING THE DOG. ENTRY TEAM ENTERED THE LOCATION AT WHICH TIME THE SAME PITBULL CHARGED AT P.O. [REDACTED], P.O. [REDACTED] FIRED 7 SHOTS FROM HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED HANDGUN AT THE PITBULL, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. SIMULTANIOUSLY A VICIOUS BLACK DOG CHARGED AT P.O. [REDACTED] FROM THE BATHROOM. P.O. [REDACTED] FIRED THREE SHOTS FROM HIS DEPARTMENT ISSUED SHOTGUN, P.O. PAUL AND P.O. GAINES FIRED ONE SOT FROM TEIR DEPARTMENT ISSUED HANGGUNS, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. P.O. [REDACTED] ENCOUNTERED A VICIOUS WHITE PITBULL IN THE BASEMENT AND FIRED HIS DEPARTMENT APROVED SHOTGUN 5 TIMES, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. AFTER THE HOUSE WAS DECLARED SAFE, CREW DETAINED NIKITA SMITH IN THE DINING ROOM. P.O. [REDACTED] RECOVERED BELOW LISTED MARIJUANA FROM THE KITCHEN STOVE TOP AND PLACED IN EVIDENCE. SGT [REDACTED] RECOVERED THE BELOW LISTED MARIJUANA FROM NE BEDROOM CLOSET, SGT [REDACTED] FORFEITED BELOW LISTED VEHICLE TO 2121 FORT STREET, TOWED BY V&F CONTROL #NW23053. MRS SMITH WAS ARRESTED AND CONVEYED TO DDC WITHOUT INCIDENT.
#96. To: nolu chan (#93)
#97. To: Stoner (#67)
Well, Mr " I want the facts ". I reread the posted article, and went to the source link, and not once did I see " Pit Bull " spelled out. Yet you injected the word into your post. Why is that ? Simple, to inject fear so others will sympathize with the cops, and try to justify their actions. Because the cops were wrong, and everyone here knows it.
Two Pit Bulls and a Rottweiler - Source
#98. To: Gatlin (#96)
Thank you. Thank you.
According to Smith, when the cops came to the door to tell her they had a warrant to look for marijuana, she asked them if she could secure the dogs. Smith put two dogs in the basement and locked one in the bathroom.
17. Next, Plaintiff Nikita Smith placed two of her dogs, Debo and Mama, in the basement and blocked the entryway to the basement.
#99. To: Stoner (#95)
Stoner: Because the cops were wrong, and everyone here knows it.
#100. To: nolu chan (#98)
If the cops did not supervise her securing the dogs, that is the damnedest police work ever on a drug search. Can I secure the dogs? Of course, ma'am, take your time, destroy all the evidence you can, and let us know when it is safe to enter. Thank you for your cooperation.
#101. To: Gatlin (#84)
I don’t think I missed anything.
#102. To: ConservingFreedom (#101)
(Edited)
#103. To: Deckard (#88)
First you rag on FTP and Matt Agorist, claiming they are biased.
#104. To: Deckard (#83)
They killed one through a locked door?
#105. To: Gatlin (#95)
#106. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#105)
(Edited)
Maybe Smith really *is* lying. Or maybe instead, the police are lying.
Smith put two dogs in the basement and locked one in the bathroom.
14 When Detroit Police officers knocked on the door, Plaintiff Nikita Smith said to the police officers, “let me put my dogs down in the basement.”
The officers were serving a search warrant …
The officers were there to execute a narcotic search warrant.
19.A Defendant police officers next entered the residence without permission.
Let's see. There's a free-running pitbull in the house, but when they knocked on the door they got no response. Was the vicious pitbull not interested in the strangers at the front door? But then they forced entry, and THEN the pitbull finally noticed them and charged.
But then they forced entry, and THEN the pitbull finally noticed them and charged.
Okay then "simultaneously" a dog then decided to charge from the bathroom. Why did this dog also wait to charge, not responding when the police announced their presense, choosing instead to sit in the bathroom until well after the first shots were fired.
Maybe Smith really *is* lying. Or maybe instead, the police are lying.
I guess it is a question now of whom do you wish to believe, Smith or all the members of the Detroit PD Narcotics Team.
It should be very easy to prove whether the bathroom door was opened or closed at the time the police shot that dog. That would show who's lying, whether it be all the police at the scene, or Smith.
#107. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#105)
We can also note that the police report give so mention of threat from the dog in the basement, only that they found it and killed it. No reason is given why.
P.O. [REDACTED] ENCOUNTERED A "VICIOUS" WHITE PITBULL IN THE BASEMENT AND FIRED HIS DEPARTMENT APROVED SHOTGUN 5 TIMES, ALL SHOTS TOOK EFFECT AND DESTROYED THE ANIMAL. [Underline and quotation marks added for emphasis].
- very violent and cruel
- very dangerous
- having or showing very angry or cruel feelings
#108. To: nolu chan (#93)
#109. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#108)
Drug dealers, all Puckards hero's, commonly use pit bulls as meat shields from LE as defense of their crack houses. Aside from the drug charges, the criminal scumbag should be charged with felony animal abuse when LE is forced to dispatch these animals that are USED by scumbags.
#110. To: Gatlin (#109)
#111. To: Pinguinite (#105)
(Edited)
So, who do I believe? Based on all the info, the police report doesn't add up as well. The bathroom photo is the most compelling evidence.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#112. To: GrandIsland (#108)
Aside from the drug charges...
dispatched killed the animals, which by the way were no threat to them. “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#113. To: Deckard (#112)
, which by the way were no threat to them.
#114. To: GrandIsland (#113)
but here on LF, it's opinion formed by 3rd party yella journalism.
#115. To: Deckard (#111)
Makes sense now why the cops never bothered to show up in court and the charges were dropped.
Wayne County Prosecutor's Office
Wayne County Prosecutor
#116. To: Gatlin, GrandIsland (#109)
The city of Binghamton said an increasing number of drug dealers use pit bulls to attack its police force, and City Council is looking to stop it.
12. On or about January 14, 2016 at approximately 12:30 p.m., a large number of Defendant City’s police officers arrived at the residence, including Defendants Gaines, Morrison, Paul, John Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 1 to execute a search warrant.
Of prime importance in assessing the intrusion is the fact that the police had obtained a warrant to search respondent's house for contraband. A neutral and detached magistrate had found probable cause to believe that the law was being violated in that house, and had authorized a substantial invasion of the privacy of the persons who resided there. The detention of one of the residents while the premises were searched, although admittedly a significant restraint on his liberty, was surely less intrusive than the search itself. Indeed, we may safely assume that most citizens -- unless they intend flight to avoid arrest -- would elect to remain in order to observe the search of their possessions. Furthermore, the type of detention imposed here is not likely to be exploited by the officer or unduly prolonged in order to gain more information, because the information the officers seek normally will be obtained through the search, and not through the detention.
In assessing the justification for the detention of an occupant of premises being searched for contraband pursuant to a valid warrant, both the law enforcement interest and the nature of the "articulable facts" supporting the detention are relevant. Most obvious is the legitimate law enforcement interest in preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found. Less obvious, but sometimes of greater importance, is the interest in minimizing the risk of harm to the officers. Although no special danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence. The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Cf. 2 W. LaFave Search and Seizure § 4.9, pp. 150-151 (1978). Finally, the orderly completion of the search may be facilitated if the occupants of the premises are present. Their self-interest may induce them to open locked doors or locked containers to avoid the use of force that is not only damaging to property but may also delay the completion of the task at hand.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
#117. To: Deckard, nolu chan (#115)
Makes sense now why the cops never bothered to show up in court and the charges were dropped.
#118. To: nolu chan (#116)
The law enforcement officers' first job after entry is to establish absolute command of the scene.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Lisa Glime