Another Isolated Incident

Radley Balko | September 27, 2007

Petaluma, California:

The suit filed by Carl Keane and his girlfriend, Chieko Strange, of Mill Valley, names as defendants Petaluma Police Officer Paul Acconero and DEA agents Seth McMullen and John Silva.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, is meant to "redress one of the worst nightmares of any law-abiding citizen," the couple said in their filing.

The three defendants were among a group of DEA agents who burst into the couple's home Dec. 19 using a search warrant signed by a Sonoma County judge for an investigation of a cross-country shipment of six pounds of marijuana.

No drugs, drug residue, money or weapons were found during the search of Keane's house.

Strange, 63, said in the suit that a DEA agent held her down with a boot on her head as agents stormed through the house yelling, "Where are your weapons?" and "You know why we're here."

It's also important to keep a broader perspective when reviewing these botched raids:  Even if they'd had the right house, is stopping six pounds of marijuana from entering the Petaluma illicit drug market really worth breaking into a home, throwing a 60-year-old woman to the ground, and stepping on her head with a police boot?  Is it really that important that residents of Petaluma not have access to that particular six pounds of weed?  In other words, that one of these raids goes wrong about once a week is only a small part of the problem (though it's an admittedly powerful rhetorical argument against them). 

The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?

Comments

|9.27.07 @ 11:05AM|#

The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?

Sing it loud brother!

|9.27.07 @ 11:05AM|#

REMEMBER KATHRYN JOHNSTON!

|9.27.07 @ 11:11AM|#

It is clear the only violent crime 'pot' causes is from cops.

|9.27.07 @ 11:13AM|#

I'm somewhat surprised these LEOs didn't bring the requisite throwdown contraband in this case. ;-(

jimmydageek|9.27.07 @ 11:23AM|#

The thing that really gives me a sinking feeling is that the MSM will probably never report on such incidents. Thus, a large part of the population lives on in ignorance of the destructive nature of the WODs.

|9.27.07 @ 11:24AM|#

It's a slippery slope. If we allow 60 year old women to not have police boots on their heads because it's "only" six pounds of weed, next year they'll be complaining because it's "only" twelve pounds, and so on. You give them an inch and they take a mile.

|9.27.07 @ 11:27AM|#

Not to mention, then 59 year olds would want to be exempt from random head stompings.

Steven|9.27.07 @ 11:29AM|#

As long as they had probable cause that they may have had drugs, weapons or money in their house, I don't see what the problem is.

Even if they'd had the right house, is stopping six pounds of marijuana from entering the Petaluma illicit drug market really worth breaking into a home, throwing a 60-year-old woman to the ground, and stepping on her head with a police boot

Yes it is, even if they were accidentialy killed, that is nothing compared to the harm that much of the weeds could have caused. It is just the price we pay to live in a free country, free of drugs.

|9.27.07 @ 11:31AM|#

"""The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?"""

Because they can. Which make me wonder if the bigger question is why do so few Americans care?

Juanita|9.27.07 @ 11:32AM|#

Yes it is, even if they were accidentialy killed, that is nothing compared to the harm that much of the weeds could have caused. It is just the price we pay to live in a free country, free of drugs.

You says it like it is, bro. Anything that can help the cops to keep us all off drugs is inherintly a good thing, I'm all for it.

VM|9.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Chieko Strange?
Carl Keane?

Chet Morton? Callie Shaw?

|9.27.07 @ 11:35AM|#

Keane and Strange should have asked for "professional courtesy."

|9.27.07 @ 11:49AM|#

Juanita, you're doing it wrong. I mean, if you're going to troll, you're supposed to make it less obvious, so you get people to actually believe you're serious.

And on the subject of the thread, a big thumbs up to you again Radley. It's a shame that people seem to accept this, and that the police departments use the same excuses every time it happens.

|9.27.07 @ 11:52AM|#

If the police just killed every infant as they were being born, it would stop everyone from ingesting devilish drugs. Then we could have a truly problem-free society!

Shannon Love|9.27.07 @ 12:11PM|#

People forget that the power of the State ultimately depends on its overwhelming capacity for lethal violence. Every law, no matter how trivial, is ultimately a statement of, "do/don't do 'X' or the State will kill you."

Liberal-democracy attempts to minimize the lethality of the state with various safeguards, yet the threat still remains. As practical matter, law enforcement will make mistakes and people will die. When we send the police after people engaging in outlawed behaviors we simultaneously accept the tradeoff that innocent people will die or have their lives destroyed due to inevitable errors.

At some point we must make a calculation such as: how many innocent lives are worth preventing "X' number of people from smoking pot?

I think the answer is zero. Ultimately, the harm done by pot or other drugs lands primarily on the individual who choses to use the drug. I see no reason why other people should have to assume any risk at all to protect other from their own self-destruction.

pistoffnick|9.27.07 @ 12:16PM|#

If the police just killed every infant as they were being born, it would stop everyone from ingesting devilish drugs. Then we could have a truly problem-free society!

Hasn't that been tried already? Didn't Moses escape in a reed basket on the river? And then look at the trouble he caused...

wsdave|9.27.07 @ 12:17PM|#

"The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?"

Shut up, Punk! Or the next time I see your ass not use a turn signal, I'll stomp on your head and shoot your dog.

|9.27.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Your all wrong! Our police men and women are heros! The best and the brightest! They were only doing what was necessary to make sure that nobody got hurt while they enforced the law!

|9.27.07 @ 12:51PM|#

"""When we send the police after people engaging in outlawed behaviors we simultaneously accept the tradeoff that innocent people will die or have their lives destroyed due to inevitable errors."""

I think the police are basically saying, pot can kill you, if you don't believe me, keep smoking it and I'll kill you. Smoke pot and you're dead.


"""Your all wrong! Our police men and women are heros! The best and the brightest! They were only doing what was necessary to make sure that nobody got hurt while they enforced the law!"""

Yeah, every Republican has a different song when the cops knock on their door.

Ayatollah Usoe|9.27.07 @ 12:51PM|#

"The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?"

You don't expect them to go after hard-core criminals, that would be dangerous.

Rhywun|9.27.07 @ 12:52PM|#

Which make me wonder if the bigger question is why do so few Americans care?

Americans' general inability to see more than two feet around themselves is at the root of it. It'll take a LOT more boot-stompings for the majority to get the idea that this could indeed happen to anyone.

Christ on a Cracker|9.27.07 @ 12:57PM|#

There should be a law* where the question "What is the downside of waiting a day, or week, or month?" must be addressed before using these tactics. If someone isn't going to die over the delay, then this use of force is criminal. Period.

Also,
Law Enforcement Officers also must be subject to HIGHER penalties than a non-LEO for a similar crime.
Home invasion by a nonLEO gets 5 to 20
Home invasion by a LEO gets 10 to life.

I know, I'm just dreaming. Keep on Radley. Maybe someday enough people will listen.

*I can't believe I just said that.
CoaC

|9.27.07 @ 12:58PM|#

Steven and Juanita,
sittin' in a tree
tee-ar-oh-ellell-aye-en-jee.

First comes ....

aw damn. Somebody help me out with this one?

Tom Gellhaus|9.27.07 @ 1:11PM|#

I am posting a link to William H. Grigg's most recent topic of discussion, as it seems at least possibly relevant:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/09/state-on-steroids.html

Basically, the above talks about evidence that LEOs increasingly use (and may be encouraged to use) anabolic steroids, and the effect that such use has on job "performance".

poco|9.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#

The bigger question is, why use such violent, confrontational tactics to prevent nonviolent crimes in the first place?

Because the cops'/prosecutors' thinking is probably that six pounds of doob has a street value of at least $25,000 -- possibly much more -- and how can we permit people to profit that much from illegal contraband, bla bla bla. (NB: This is their logic, not mine or trolls'.)

|9.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#

The cops on steroids line is definitely true. I was a personal trainer for a while, and I had almost every member of the local pd ask me where they could get some juice at one point or another. I don't know if it was an attempted sting or something, but I know they ended up getting their shit from someone...

Ben|9.27.07 @ 1:40PM|#

There much more to this than in the article Radley linked.

Apparently someone shipped the six pounds of pot and used Carl Keane's return address. I guess the mail clerk smelled the pot and called the cops, but she failed to pick Keane out of a photo lineup. The worst part: Keane was actually arrested after they found NOTHING indicating guilt in his home. It seems someone just picked a random name out of the phone book for the return address. Did it ever occurred to the cops that someone shipping drugs might not use their own home as a return address? It certainly wouldn't hold up in court. Morons.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20070925/NEWS/709250358
(registration required)

|9.27.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Ah. The tyranny that is the WOD. I hope these folks win their case.

Rhywun|9.27.07 @ 2:30PM|#

The real question is, who is stupid enough to send or receive weed through the mail?! Natural selection, folks.

Ben|9.27.07 @ 2:53PM|#

It almost looks like someone was trying to set this guy up....

|9.27.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Did it ever occurred to the cops that someone shipping drugs might not use their own home as a return address? It certainly wouldn't hold up in court. Morons.

I know someone who went though a similar situation. One day, fed-ex showed up at her door asking her to sign for a package. She didn't recognize the name even though the address was next door. After she refused to sign for the package, the PD showed up (it wasn't a SWAT raid)and interrogated her and husband(especially the husband), attempting to intimidate them into "confessing".

Eventually (after a few months), it must have become clear that they weren't involved drug smuggling and everything was dropped. Their lawyer said that if she had signed for the package, she might have been screwed. If whoever had shipped the drugs had used her neighbor's name, she would have.

The real question is, who is stupid enough to send or receive weed through the mail?! Natural selection, folks.

It's probably a workable scheme if you picked the house of someone who worked during the day, and made sure the shipper would leave the package at the house. Then you could go over, pick it up,and no one would be aware of anything. The person whose house it was wasn't expecting anything, so they wouldn't be looking for it, and if anything goes wrong, the address isn't yours anyway so you're off the hook.

|9.27.07 @ 4:08PM|#

David,
I know a thing or two about shipping Fed-Ex; what actually happened is that the shipper in your second paragraph above seleted 'Indirect Signature' on the shipping label. This means that the delivery driver must first try the original address, and if noone is home they will try the immediate neighbors homes to see if anyone would sign for it. If noone signs for it, the package is taken abck to the station and calls are made. If noone wants the package, then it is returned to sender. 'Indirect Signature' is only avialable for residential delivries.

With 'Direct Signature', no neighbors are involved. A slip is left at the door and the package is stored at the nearest depot will calls are made for a few days.

'Indirect Signature' is the default. The package is merely left at the front stoop.

Signatures are required on deliveries with a declared value of $500 or more. And the package must be manually inspected by FedEx for such values...but they are human too, and get lazy/rushed, things get missed. A sender does not have to declare a value though.

mokin|9.27.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Does anybody know of a website that catalogs these types of "isolated incidents"?

If there isn't one already I'd be interested in starting one.

Eric Hanneken|9.27.07 @ 4:38PM|#

Does anybody know of a website that catalogs these types of "isolated incidents"?

Cato has a map of botched paramilitary police raids, which I believe was set up by Radley Balko.

armchair pedant|9.27.07 @ 6:42PM|#

Sam, "no one" is two words, not one. :)

|9.27.07 @ 6:55PM|#

Terrorists are funded with drug money, so for all the police knew they were dealing with islamo-fascism trying to fund a attack...9/11 changed everything and the amercian people need to understand that.

|9.27.07 @ 9:15PM|#

I think the police are basically saying, pot can kill you, if you don't believe me, keep smoking it and I'll kill you. Smoke pot and you're dead.

"Another marijuana-related death."

|9.27.07 @ 9:21PM|#

This story doesn't appear to have been covered in the San Francisco press at all.

Thanks, Radley.

|9.27.07 @ 10:25PM|#

As a former law-enforcement officer, I believe that placing my foot on the head of an unarmed citizen is considered assault.

Why don't they find the judge that signed the warrant, storm into his house unannounced and do it to him?

Yes, we're letting things slide..

Mostly our constitutional rights..

|9.28.07 @ 12:19AM|#

Aaaaawww shee-it, man! One pound of that package was mine!!! Now I'll have to buy back off the pigs....

Evan|9.28.07 @ 12:26AM|#

this is why I wear a helmet at all times

|9.28.07 @ 5:49AM|#

"Sam, "no one" is two words, not one. :)"

thanks

I think that was related to my lyxdexia problem

|9.28.07 @ 5:50AM|#

syslexia

er...

fuckit.