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: 21188
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 118.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
Typical Matt Agorist sensationalist bullshit. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. It is legally impossible to murder a dog.
Who said he was using the legal definition? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder?s=t: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously." My dog was worth approximately 500 of these thug cops. Had a cop killed my dog to compensate for his numerous inadequacies, only regard for my family would have kept me from stalking and exterminating him.
I always thought murder was taken of an innocent life. Too many people these days are using their dog as a weapon and might not even know they are doing it. I can not tell you how many times I have been bitten by a dog that the owner swore it never bites. This really only started since the mid to late 90's. Before that dogs really were not the issue they are today.
Uh - these dogs were restrained, in the basement and bathroom. The cops shot through the door of the bathroom to finish off their killing spree.
I guess they put the dogs where they did not want the police to look?
They put the dogs there because they didn't want them to be killed. The dogs were not a threat - the cops were psychos.
And you have confirmed this ... how?
And you have confirmed this ... how? The cops shot one dog standing next to it's owner - no threat. Another one was shot through the locked bathroom door. And you think it was a threat? The third one, the pregnant one was in the basement - they went down there and killed that one too. Nowhere have the cops claimed that the dogs threatened them. All charges against the owner were dropped when the cops failed to show up in court. This is sociopathic behavior - and to make it worse, the cops gloated about killing the dogs and threatened the owner. These are the types of cops you worship.
And you think it was a threat? With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. Hey, sport, it doesn’t take an animal behavioral specialist with a doctorate degree to know that a dominant-aggressive dog is very dangerous and poses a threat. BAM! BAM! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Cujo dog ... dead dog!!!
HOW do you KNOW this to be a fact?
HOW do you KNOW this to be a fact? How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? That would be the first question an intelligent person with general cognitive problem-solving skills would ask … est-ce pas droit ?
How do you know that he did not? And what is the source of your info: " " With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door " " " That would be the first question an intelligent person with general cognitive problem-solving skills would ask … est-ce pas droit ? " Take your own advice.
" How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? " How do you know that he did not? I don’t know if Matt Agorist presented “facts” or “judgments” in the article. I do however know that I go through a thought process each time I read an article to ask myself, “Can I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is true?” If the answer is yes, then it’s a fact, and I begin the process of acceptance. On the other hand, if there is even a tiny bit of doubt and wiggle room … then it’s a judgment. Unlike a fact, a judgment is open to interpretation and can be questioned, challenged and disputed … for me, that’s exactly what needs to be done. I do what I do … I challenge a judgment. Challenging a judgment isn’t an easy thing to do. But the first step is simply recognizing that a judgment is more subjective than objective. And that provides a certain degree of comfort in and of itself. It appears that it is a natural tendency for some people to accept a judgment as a fact without even realizing it. Or, when they read something they want to believe, they will accept it as a fact and not realize it is a judgment. Facts have very little power to hurt us, but it’s only when we insert a painful judgment that we can suffer and cause others to suffer. You missed my point with the Cujo parody, it was used to show that many things are possible and we really don’t know what went on behind a closed bathroom door. I do know that one of the dogs was an American Pit Bull Terrier and based on the article, it would be pretty safe to make a judgment that the other two dogs were the same breed. It did not go unnoticed by me that Mat Agorist mentioned “dog(s)” twelve times in the article and not once did use “Pit Bull(s).” Why not? Was it because these fearful two words would nullify the sympathy conditioning he was leading his readers towards? Probably so. I feel that is what an intelligent person with general cognitive problem- solving skills would do … I have done so and therefore I have taken my own advice. If you want to accept what Matt Agorist had to say as fact, believe it and condemn the cops, then that is your prerogative to do so … est-ce pas droit?
Many insurers will often not provide homeowner’s insurance coverage Pit Bulls because of the massive volume of attacks and because they are so vicious. Quite frequently, these dogs repeatedly make headlines for attacking people. Their aggressive temperament matched with their strength historically saw them bred as fighting dogs. Pit bulls have been known to attack the elderly, their owners, attack and eat small children – anyone that happens to be in their path. If the dog feels provoked or startled, it has been known to attack. Many owners swear that their pet would never attack them; however, this breed has led to more human fatalities than any other. it also cannot be denied that this particular breed is responsible for more fatalities than any other type of dog. I can imagine the Pit Bull behind the bathroom door acting the way I depicted Cujo, but you can imagine the Pit Bull as a docile lap dog cowering in the corner afraid of the big bad cops if you choose to do so. " 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. 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 ! Go back to being a cop groupie. Maybe some will let you polish their badge, LOL
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. 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 ! Go back to being a cop groupie. Maybe some will let you polish their badge, LOL Can you recognize a Pit Bull when you see one? Yes … you say? Then go to paragraph in the article and click on the Daily News on Thursday link. You see ole Debo pictured there? Debo was one of three of Nikita Smith's dogs that were killed. Do you recognize Debo’s jaws as those of a pit bull, which can grab hold of their target and refuse to let to … sometimes even after they have expired. They are hard-wired for this behavior. Look at those teeth, those are pit bull teeth that when he once gets his teeth in, nothing can shake him off. Ralph Waldo Emerson " 'This is the bull-dog bite; you must cut off the head to loosen the teeth." Jack London described the bulldog grip in White Fang as the "clinging death." Matt Agorist who leads you to believe that pit bulls are "just dogs" is either lying to you, ignorant of the true nature of gripping dogs or concealing information in order to gain sympathy and support for his biased cause. I have shown you where Matt Agorist “lied by omission.” Now show me where my “lie” is, please.
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:
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.
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.
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. [...]
Nothing else needs to be said.
There are no replies to Comment # 118. End Trace Mode for Comment # 118.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 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.
Murder. The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
It is legally impossible to murder a dog.
#5. To: ConservingFreedom, nolu chan (#4)
Who said he was using the legal definition? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder?s=t: "to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."
#7. To: Justified (#5)
Too many people these days are using their dog as a weapon and might not even know they are doing it.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
Uh - these dogs were restrained, in the basement and bathroom.
#10. To: Justified (#9)
(Edited)
I guess they put the dogs where they did not want the police to look?
#13. To: Deckard, Justified (#10)
The dogs were not a threat ...
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
The dogs were not a threat ...
#21. To: Deckard (#15)
Another one was shot through the locked bathroom door.
#34. To: Gatlin (#21)
" With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. "
#37. To: Stoner (#34)
(Edited)
" With Cujo behind the bathroom engaged in excessive low-range barking; snarling; growling, snapping and scratching at the bathroom door, I would damn well think … no, scratch that … I would damned well know that Cujo was exhibiting dominant behavior which crossed the line to aggression. "
#64. To: Gatlin (#37)
" How do you KNOW the author, Matt Agorist, stated FACTS in the article? "
#66. To: Stoner (#64)
Many insurers will often not provide homeowner’s insurance coverage Pit Bulls because of the massive volume of attacks and because they are so vicious. Quite frequently, these dogs repeatedly make headlines for attacking people. Their aggressive temperament matched with their strength historically saw them bred as fighting dogs. Pit bulls have been known to attack the elderly, their owners, attack and eat small children – anyone that happens to be in their path. If the dog feels provoked or startled, it has been known to attack. Many owners swear that their pet would never attack them; however, this breed has led to more human fatalities than any other. it also cannot be denied that this particular breed is responsible for more fatalities than any other type of dog. I can imagine the Pit Bull behind the bathroom door acting the way I depicted Cujo, but you can imagine the Pit Bull as a docile lap dog cowering in the corner afraid of the big bad cops if you choose to do so.
Since there is no way for me to determine if what Matt Agorist published is fact, judgment or opinion … I can therefore neither condemn nor condone the actions by the cops.
#67. To: Gatlin (#66)
" not once did use “Pit Bull(s).” Why not? Was it because these fearful two words would nullify the sympathy conditioning he was leading his readers towards? Probably so.
#73. To: Stoner (#67)
Pit Bull ...
#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.
#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.
#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.
#118. To: nolu chan (#116)
The law enforcement officers' first job after entry is to establish absolute command of the scene.
Replies to Comment # 118.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]