Drug Policy

Another Isolated Incident

|

Cook County, Illinois:

An elderly couple says Cook County sheriff's police on a drug raid smashed into their Southwest Side house late Thursday night, terrorizing them before admitting they had the wrong house.

With her husband already asleep, 84-year-old Anna Jakymek was just turning out the lights when she heard loud noises at the back and front doors about 11:30 p.m.

Her initial thought was that her 89-year old husband had fallen out of bed, but she realized something else was happening when she looked into the front room.

"I see maybe 20 guys come in and see the door knocked open," she said…

Son Andrew said the most potent drug in the home is aspirin.

"They don't smoke, drink or even watch TV. They believe in America," he said.

He added that his father, Andrij, suffers from Alzheimer's Disease and has terminal cancer.

"He won't even take pain medicine," he said…

His mother, he said, called him after the raid at the request of the supervising sergeant on the scene. When he got there, he said he was told the officers had raided the wrong home.

"When I arrived the officer explained they had misinformation, but said his job was over, and he was leaving. They left a copy of the warrant, but he absolved himself of any responsibility for the raid or the damage," Andrew Jakymec said.

He estimated the damage to broken doors, locks and windows at up to $3,000.

"Everything was violently opened. Cabinets were ripped open, clothes and sheets were everywhere, and pieces of wood where the doors were rammed were all over the place," he said.

Bonus points: The Jakymeks emigrated to the U.S. from the Ukraine in the 1960s in order to escape Soviet oppression.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

121 responses to “Another Isolated Incident

  1. The Jakymeks came emigrated the U.S. from the Ukraine in the 1960s in order to escape Soviet oppression.

    Oh, so it’s just like being home. No cultural shock there!

    1. Yup, state coercion is state coercion.

      1. We’re just as bad as the Soviets!

        1. Maybe not all of us…but they are in Cook County…

    2. In the Soviet Union they would have been tortured and executed because the State does not make mistakes. Here they just remove your house number.

      1. In soviet Russia, you coerce the state!

  2. I formally condemn this egregious abuse of police power.

    But I think the son has a warped idea of what believing in America means.

    1. Re: Tulpa,

      But I think the son has a warped idea of what believing in America means.

      The cops were there to straighten him out, f’r sure.

    2. Smoking, drinking, and watching TV pretty much defines America, so these people shouldn’t be surprised they were suspects for not doing these things. We should all thank the fine Chicago Police for making sure these people assimilate properly. It was only a matter of time before th

      1. Before th…

        Before what?? Before they die? Before the TV eats them? Before that Steve Smith character rapes them?? WHAT?!

        1. That was a Submit fail. As in, I never hit Submit on that nested comment, meant to delete and write something else entirely, so I typed it in the other box and hit Submit on that, which is now hiding somewhere in the Tubes. TMI?

          “…before they committed some dastardly crime.” See, the comment was shit and shouldn’t have posted. My intended comment was way better but I forgot it already. I still hate this format and we’re in year 2 already aren’t we? Way to go Squirrel.

          1. It was so much better before you came back in and spoiled the illusion that “they” had gotten to you too.

            1. If by “they”, you mean Candlejack, then I could al

    3. I think the son has it exactly right. Making you own decision about smoking, drinking and tv is the american way.

  3. “They don’t smoke, drink or even watch TV. They believe in America,” he said.

    Not any more.

    Drug cops would fail at pizza delivery (probably a more dangerous job0>

    1. You think they’re going to start watching TV because of this?

      1. I think he was referring to the “believe in america” part.

  4. “When I arrived the officer explained they had misinformation, but said his job was over, and he was leaving. They [the police] left a copy of the warrant, but he [the officer] absolved himself of any responsibility for the raid or the damage,” Andrew Jakymec said.

    Yes, officers are hired for their power to adjudicate by themselves.

  5. The Second Civil War is already in full swing.

    1. Ain’t nuthin’ civil about it, son…

    2. A war requires two belligerents. I see one belligerent and a complacent mass of victims. I guess it does have something in common with the (First) Civil War, I’ll give you that.

  6. I guess I try to see the upside in everything, so I guess it’s good the dad has Alzheimers because at least he won’t remember what happened by tomorrow morning.

    1. Yes, there is that. And, we are also cheered by the fact that they weren’t in Las Vegas.

  7. Seriously, though, if anti-cop folks and anti-cop union folks in a city where they are so entrenched as Chicago ever had a wedge issue handed to them on a silver platter, then here it is.

    This is the kind of think it takes to motivate people to really look into cops, what they do and how they are compensated. Too bad neiyher newspaper in that city has the balls to investigate the LEO-union machine that runs that city as much as the Daley machine does.

    1. Every newspaper should have a Radley Balko on the payroll.

      Unfortunately, there only seems to be one for the whole country.

      1. If Ron Bailey has his way they will…they will!

  8. Because its obviously too much to hope that the FBI and US Attorney General would actually DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and investigate and prosecute obvious violations of civil rights like this . . .

    I hope someone at least sues in civil court.

    1. The Obama administration’s law-enforcement officials, like Bush’s and Clinton’s, don’t seem eager to pursue this type of case. It’s the individual vs the state thing.

      1. Why would the DOJ look into this? They’re all on the same team.

        If you’ll note, the few Fed investigations we see of fellow government employees are always of politicians or judges; never of cops or police departments. I assume this is because taking down Eliott Spitzer is a career maker, but busting some CPD pigs just serves justice and not your career.

        1. True dat:

          MINNEAPOLIS — To hear Mike Freeman tell it, he was the one who was handcuffed. The Hennepin County Attorney told reporters Wednesday he was stymied in his attempt to seek criminal charges against possible rogue members of Metro Gang Strike Force by sloppy recordkeeping at the unit’s headquarters.

          “This is a problem and we don’t like it,” said Freeman. “The record keeping is so bad, it’s stunning.”

          Without that evidence, Freeman said it’s impossible to charge or exonerate any of the officers who worked with the strike force, which was permanently shut down last year after a series of misconduct allegations.

          “We know bad police work was done in some cases,” said Freeman, “but we can’t say that it rose to the level of criminality,”

          Freeman says the investigation was further hurt by a refusal to cooperate by nearly 30 strike force members, including Ron Ryan, the unit’s former commander. Forty-four other officers and staff members did talk to investigators.

          Attorney Robert Hopper, who last month won a $3 million settlement for alleged victims of strike force misconduct, found Freeman’s explanation lacking.

          “That didn’t seem to stop the prosecution of Denny Hecker when he didn’t cooperate, did it?” he asked rhetorically.

          http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=871049

      2. There is no case. If somebody screwed up the address, it’s a simple error. Obama’s administration is no more or no less likely to investigate this sort of that the Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan administrations would.

        1. Whether there is or isnt a case cant be determined until after the investigation.

    2. The county will probably eventually pay for the damages.

      1. probably…eventually…maybe they should fucking stay around, repack everything and get a tool set and fix anything they broke before leaving.

  9. If you want to make an omelet, you have to terrorize some elderly immigrants.

  10. i would hope that if the police raid the wrong house and do thousands of dollars of damage, then they should at least be liable to repair the damage they did

    i rarely get what i hope for, though

    1. That would detract from their budget for buying fun SWAT toys.

      1. They could confiscate some property from these people and use the proceeds from the sale to pay for the repairs.

        Call it the evidentiary circle of life.

  11. Phew. Good thing you keep telling me these are isolated incidents, Radley. I’ve been getting afraid there’s some kind of pattern!

    1. Someone once said that he should publish a coffee table book with all these stories compiled. The title is already there.

  12. “They don’t smoke, drink or even watch TV. They believe in don’t understand America,” he said.

  13. they could have found SOMETHING.

    1. They found aspirin.

      That’s a GATEWAY DRUG, isn’t it?

  14. Seriously, Radley? Will you stop fucking up my mornings, please? And I had just got high . . . *sigh*

    1. Shit. I’ve got a long weekend about to start.

      Just what I needed to depress me for the next 72 hours.

      1. ‘Course, when I saw the headline, I should have known what was going to happen.

        Hope the Jakymeks didn’t have a dog.

        1. I was just thinking how the story left out the part where they shot the couple’s dog.

          1. If the cops had planned ahead, they would have stopped by the pound to pick up a dog to shoot in case they didn’t find one when they kicked the door in. Sloppy, sloppy, effing sloppy.

  15. “He won’t even take pain medicine,”

    What a fucking rube. I guarantee this guy is one of those people who emphatically support the very same war on drugs that led to this nonsensical police conduct. I’ve never understood these “hugs, not drugs” people, particularly when you’re dying of cancer.

    If the guy’s not smart enough to recognize that he’ll be dead in a few months anyway, that we can reduce his pain substantially, and that his potential for addiction is irrelevant (since death cures addiction), then there is no way to explain to him that this police conduct in the name of keeping kids “safe” makes no sense.

    1. Ah…who knows his motivation. It’s his choice and I won’t begrudge him that. Were it me….I’d have them hang a pony keg full of a morphine/heroin/fentanyl cocktail..oh yeah hand me the remote too!

      1. Somewhat my thoughts. Short of him refusing pain medication due to dementia, there is no excuse for this nonsense. My grandfather went through the same childish mentality right up until his death – preferring to suffer pain and subject his family to mental torment rather than take “drugs.” Totally pointless to argue with the guy about how his other medications were drugs too, he was stuck in a Reaganesque state of drug denial.

        As for me – I hit 70 and the cocaine/stripper/hooker party begins.

        1. This guy, your grandfather…..they’re old school. Wouldn’t ask for a bucket of water if they were on fire. It’s a shame but goes to show how deep the conditioning goes.

          1. Water is a gateway drug.

            1. And will rot your brains. Why do you think it’s called the ‘universal solvent” huh? HUH?

        2. As for me – I hit 70 and the cocaine/stripper/hooker party begins.

          Seems if you’re in your 80’s and have dementia, strippers and hookers wouldn’t be as much fun as, oh I dunno, killing police. And you’d be doing the country a favor.

          1. Totally. Fuck Kevorkian – when it’s my time, I’ll plan a nice suicide-by-cop. Screw dying silently with dignity!

    2. I guarantee this guy is one of those people who emphatically support the very same war on drugs that led to this nonsensical police conduct.

      Really? Do you have something to back up this idiotic assumption? For all you know this guy could have been a model live-and-let-live type that just happened to choose to not use any kind of pain medication. I don’t drink, so can you also guarantee that I am a tee-totaling busybody that castigates drunks?

      1. It’s far from an idiotic assumption. Look at polling data that covers issues like drug decriminalization. Currently, Prop 19’s largest opposition is coming from the elderly. It’s no surprise that the old vote and oftentimes vote no on socially progressive matters.

        If it’s a 60-40 probability, that’s good enough for a random morning blog post.

      2. I don’t drink and I do castigate drunks.

        Not for their drinking, of course, but because, in my experience, most drinkers are FUCKING INCAPABLE of understanding that some people don’t like drinking and are a goddamn pain in the ass about it.

    3. I still don’t get the whole “addicted to pain meds” thing. If you’re not in pain, sure.

      Someone who actually has chronic pain caused by some inoperable malady? The desire to not be in constant physical pain = addiction? Does not compute.

      1. Most Rx drug addiction is caused by people who take the drugs for legitimate pain problems. The difficulty with Rx drug abuse is that people begin to confuse withdraw symptoms and a need for an increasingly great number of pills with a greater level of pain (thus resulting in them taking more pills). The problem is compounded by the fact that one of the main symptoms of Rx drug withdraw is phantom pains – typically in the area that caused you to begin taking the drugs in the first place.

        The addiction is chemical in nature and is very real. I just don’t understand why people like this guy care – he’s got terminal cancer and won’t survive long enough to develop a dependency issue. Even if he does, it’s really worrying about the wrong thing to even waste time thinking about Rx drug abuse problems.

        1. I wasn’t clear. I understand the physical dependency aspect. For people who don’t have a source of chronic pain, yes, they’re straight-up addicted (NTTAWWT).

          But for patients who have a confirmed malady that DEFINITELY causes non-stop debilitating pain (spinal or foot injuries, cancer, etc), how does the physical dependence on the painkillers factor against the fact that they’d be in severe pain long after any withdrawals, and until the day they die?

          Appropriately, no-one gives a shit if the malady is actively and significantly shortening your life span. “Eh, he’s gonna die anyway.”

          What about the people who won’t die from the source of pain? They have a choice between pain or painkillers, for the rest of their lives. Ok, so dose management is an issue for these patients. Thankfully, there’s a whole field already specializing in Pain Management. Is it appropriate to label such a case as “addiction” though?

          Is pain easy to quantify? I’m not sure if we’ll EVER have technology to make that possible. Will some people fake pain to get high? Yeah, as long as that’s the easiest way to accomplish their goal of getting high. Oh well, sucks to be them. At the least we could let life suck less for those in chronic pain.

          1. The problem with pain management is that opiates are terrible for chronic pain due to the major impact they have on long term liver function. These drugs do shorten a life significantly.

            THC is a far better long-term pain management drug when it comes to low to intermediate level pain. Even the government recognizes this fact, as synthetic THC is a schedule 3 narcotic (not natural THC, that’s still up there with heroin in schedule 1, despite the fact that the drug is exactly the same as synthetic THC).

            Situations of chronic pain are always difficult. They are made more difficult by the police who oftentimes second guess doctors and arrest patients who have huge amounts of pain killers in their possession (because they need to take huge volumes of them due to increased tolerance). Sad stuff.

            1. THC is a far better long-term pain management drug when it comes to low to intermediate level pain. Even the government recognizes this fact, as synthetic THC is a schedule 3 narcotic (not natural THC, that’s still up there with heroin in schedule 1, despite the fact that the drug is exactly the same as synthetic THC).

              Gotta love the blatant double standards held by government and those who grovel for a piece of the taxpayer pie.

          2. The problem with pain management is that opiates are terrible for chronic pain due to the major impact they have on long term liver function. These drugs do shorten a life significantly.

            THC is a far better long-term pain management drug when it comes to low to intermediate level pain. Even the government recognizes this fact, as synthetic THC is a schedule 3 narcotic (not natural THC, that’s still up there with heroin in schedule 1, despite the fact that the drug is exactly the same as synthetic THC).

            Situations of chronic pain are always difficult. They are made more difficult by the police who oftentimes second guess doctors and arrest patients who have huge amounts of pain killers in their possession (because they need to take huge volumes of them due to increased tolerance). Sad stuff.

      2. What frequently happens is somebody has a wound or other medical condition and is in pain, takes pain meds, the wound heals, they are no longer in pain, but they are by then addicted to the drug.

    4. Kind of a dumb assumption – and it is pure speculation on your part, based on nothing but your own prejudgment.

      I don’t give a crap if someone wants to smoke pot or snort coke or whatever and I believe the stupid war on drugs has been a total failure. I think it should be at least as legal to smoke pot as it is to drink beer.

      But I don’t like taking drugs – even prescription meds – either. I don’t like putting chemicals into my body. I’ll take ibuprofen for the occasional headache or muscle ache, and sudafed for sinus pain, and over-the-counter meclizine for motion sickness, and that’s pretty much it.

      I don’t like having my senses dulled – whether it’s by an anthistimine, pain reliever or recreational chemical.

      That does not translate into meaning that I’m also an anti-drug warrior.

      1. So what? You are an exception. 95% of the people who have the same aversion to chemical intake ARE anti-drug warriors.

        The assumption isn’t dumb at all.

        1. Source?

          I think most simply do not care to partake. I don’t do drugs because I don’t care for most of them. I’ll take aspirin for a bad headache, but that’s it. I honestly can’t remember the last time I had a scrip that I even had filled. I do, however, drink like a fish.

          I for one know a lot of people who are anti-drug but are going to vote for Prop 19.

          1. Sounds like me.

            I have never smoked anything in my life and dont even like taking sudafed or etc.

            I did keep Claritin in my car for visiting a friend who had cats. That was (they recently moved out of town) my voluntary non-alcohol drug of choice.

            1. Why the hell would you feed Claritin to cats?

        2. 93% of statistics are made up on the spot.

          1. 98% of posters are tired of that phrase.

            1. 35% of posters are secretly calendars.

      2. “[A]nd it is pure speculation on your part, based on nothing but your own prejudgment.”

        Yeah, and, so what? Almost every human interaction is governed by pure speculation and prejudgment. I speculate when crossing a street that an on coming car will stop when I have the light. Similarly, I speculate that when meeting a stranger, he or she will not punch me in the face without provocation or warning. Aside from my personal experience and speculation, is there reason to believe that the car will stop or that I will be greeted with a handshake, rather than a fist?

        “I don’t like having my senses dulled”

        You’ve clearly never had chronic pain issues. Pain killers, when used properly, do not get a person high or dull their senses. To the contrary, they reduce pain to a manageable level and allow a person to focus on their lives – they enhance senses by removing the blinders that pain so often place on people. I couldn’t imagine what it’s like to live with chronic cancer, but the agony has to be all consuming. The argument that you don’t want your senses to be dulled while being driven delirious by agony is as wrong as it is misdirected.

        A generality needn’t be true all the time to be valid. Generally speaking, people who run around talking about how they never do any drug or take any medication are people who are very supportive of the war on drugs. Your exception doesn’t disprove the general truth.

        1. Generally speaking, people who run around talking about how they never do any drug or take any medication are people who are very supportive of the war on drugs.

          You state that with such authority.

          Even if “generally speaking” it is a platitudinous truth, that in no way means this guy is.

          I guess I’m just weary of people so casually and easily jumping to totally unfounded conclusions about other people based on their own pre-formed assumptions and personal biases.

          Like if I say something un-positive about Our Dear Leader or a Democrat, the lefties assume I must be a rabid right-winger.

          People too often seek to place others into nice neat little cubbyholes. It makes it so much easier to decide how to feel about them, I suppose.

    5. His father is demented. He didn’t say he had anything against pain medicine or any drug, it’s just that his father is probably close to forgetting to breathe, let alone take his meds.

      1. Meh, his father will probably change his mind in the next few minutes anyway.

  16. This was amateur hour for these cops. Unless there was nothing for them to throw down.

  17. Seriously, Radley? Will you stop fucking up my mornings, please? And I had just got high . . . *sigh*

    Yeah…it harshed my mellow as well.

    How bout that “new professionalism” Antonin….cops aren’t smart enough to read addresses but your okay with giving them camo pants and MP-5s.

    1. To be fair, camo pants don’t require much intelligence from the user. I think zippers require a minimum IQ of only 55.

      1. Oh, and it should be obvious that wearing woodland-camo in an urban/residential setting has a IQ ceiling of 30.

        1. Funny…not a single comment about the automatic weapons.

  18. I hope they sue like these people did in a somewhat similar situation.

    1. I hope they win a fortune from the taxpayers in these difficult economic times. If The People are ever going to wake up, they have to be hit in the wallet.

      And, of course I hope all those cops are fired and charges brought against them, but we know the likelihood of that happening.

    2. That’s a much more disturbing situation.

  19. Oh, and here’s a little irony everyone should get a kick out of.

    1. Oh, stop it. She’s just conducting very thorough research.

    2. I can just hear it now. “Don’t you know who I am?” That’s two good cops in one week which is minimized severely by this whole thread.

    3. It is ironic, but it also points to just how jaded we have become. I really was surprised to learn that she was charged with DUI. Stories of sweeping these offenses under the rug are so common, I actually thought that following the law for LEO types was uncommon.

      1. She’s also being placed on leave with pay while the incident is ‘investigated’.

  20. So does anyone think the judge who signs off on a warrant should be at least partially responsible for what happens during the raid?

    Think about it: judges would personally find out everyone who was raiding to make sure their weren’t any trigger-happy yahoos on the squad. They would make damn sure the evidence was good. It would probably eliminate the “warrant obtained after the raid” thing that everyone suspects happens but is very difficult to prove. And it would also minimize the “rubber stamping” that seems to happen so often, where a judge signs something completely nonsensical.

    Think that because the judge doesn’t directly participate in the raid, that means they aren’t responsible? Tough shit.

    1. It depends on who made the easily avoidable mistake.

      The judge relies on information provided by the officers requesting the warrant. The judge must, to an extent, trust the officers to get the information right.

      If the officers had the right address on the warrant and then kicked in the door of the wrong house – for example, the warrant was for 69 Smith Street and they raided 96 Smit Street – then I don’t see how it could be the judge’s fault.

      1. True, BSR, yet omg does have a point, which has been made on some website that’s on the internet that I can’t recall off the top of my head right now, that would appear to indicate there is an alarming lack of accountability for significant and powerful segments of our judiciary/legal system. While too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking would render the entire system useless, it’s genuinely annoying that there are no effective, in any real sense, checks or balances to this facet of state power. The public servants installed to exercise it should be accountable for their actions, particularly when they are fucked up and stupid, or outright malicious.

        1. there is an alarming lack of accountability for significant and powerful segments of our judiciary/legal system.

          Yep, and most of the damages are paid by the taxpayers; the cops and judges who fuck up royally remain cops and judges.

      2. Agreed. As if our courts aren’t already overburdened, now you’re gonna make judges spend more time in approving raids?

        They’d most likely offset the time by speeding up trials where guilt is likely because the cop in front of him says so.

      3. Agreed. As if our courts aren’t already overburdened, now you’re gonna make judges spend more time in approving raids?

        They’d most likely offset the time by speeding up trials where guilt is likely because the cop in front of him says so.

        1. “”Agreed. As if our courts aren’t already overburdened, now you’re gonna make judges spend more time in approving raids?””

          Boo hoo. Everyone’s got an excuse.

          If they don’t to want overburden the courts they shouldn’t prosecute every little thing.

          I don’t think you need to hold the judge accountable. Hold the cop that filled out the form accountable.

          1. I think you missed my (poorly written) point. I think judges will spend less time giving defendants fair trials leading to more bullshit convictions on the testimony of one cop if they are forced to take time away from their caseload for this.

            The cops should be solely accountable. The judge is issuing the warrant solely on what they tell him. However, any cop making false claims on a request for a warrant should face criminal charges. Obstruction of justice should cut both ways.

            1. The judge is issuing the warrant solely on what they tell him

              Yes, but the judge should know that anonymous tips aren’t legally sufficient evidence, and that’s about all they have in many home raids.

            2. “”I think judges will spend less time giving defendants fair trials leading to more bullshit convictions on the testimony of one cop if they are forced to take time away from their caseload for this.””

              I disagree. But it would probably take longer to get your case to trial.

              “”However, any cop making false claims on a request for a warrant should face criminal charges. Obstruction of justice should cut both ways.””

              Absolutely!!

        2. As if our courts aren’t already overburdened, now you’re gonna make judges spend more time in approving raids?

          The way this is written you make it sound like judges spending more time approving which raids blue-costumed psycopaths perform against citizens is a bad thing.

          They’d most likely offset the time by speeding up trials where guilt is likely because the cop in front of him says so.

          Are you saying the more burdened the court system is, the more likely they are to find defendants guilty? Because that’s kind of the opposite of what actually happens. For a reference, see traffic court. If they are busy, and you show up to fight your ticket, they’ll say anything to make sure that trial never happens.

    2. “So does anyone think the judge who signs off on a warrant should be at least partially responsible for what happens during the raid?”

      No – because the police aren’t agents of the judge/magistrate. What’s more, the warrant here authorized a search of a different house. The police fucked up, not the judge. This was an unconstitutional search that was not authorized.

      I do, however, think that judges ought to actually question what police are saying. The problem with the justice system is that judges too often are willing to treat officer testimony as though it were the gospel truth (and even that’s bullshit). The result tends to be measurable only in the number of erroneous convictions.

      1. As a one-off, I agree with you. But if a judge shows a record of signing off on questionable warrants, he/she is part of the problem.

      2. “”I do, however, think that judges ought to actually question what police are saying. “”

        I agree. Too bad the end of the conversation isn’t do you swear everying is truthful under penalty of death.

      3. the warrant here authorized a search of a different house. The police fucked up, not the judge. This was an unconstitutional search that was not authorized.

        Unfortunately, the SCOTUS many years ago made up what’s come to be known as the “good faith exception” – i.e., if the police make an oopsie and did not knowingly break into the wrong house – i.e., they acted in good faith and just made an honest mistake – then oh well.

        This actually is used in the exclusionary rule; I don’t know whether it would help them in a civil suit in this case.

        They’ll probably get off on the bullshit sovereign immunity defense, and be found to have acted reasonably.

        It’s the “oopsie” rule that apparently is allowed for cops and judges, but not for the rest of us schlubs.

      4. No – because the police aren’t agents of the judge/magistrate.

        Then why do judges sign off on these things at all? The judge is putting his John Hancock on the form authorizing this thing, why shouldn’t he be at least partially responsible for what happens.

        What’s more, the warrant here authorized a search of a different house. The police fucked up, not the judge. This was an unconstitutional search that was not authorized.

        In this system, the judge would get in trouble for the screw up, and they would be wary of ever signing any raid that these yahoos were going to commit again. The cops would therefore have to be very careful in how they conducted the raid, and where they conducted it. Sounds like a good idea to me.

        I do, however, think that judges ought to actually question what police are saying. The problem with the justice system is that judges too often are willing to treat officer testimony as though it were the gospel truth (and even that’s bullshit). The result tends to be measurable only in the number of erroneous convictions.

        And this is the absolute best way to get that to happen, isn’t it? If you were a judge, wouldn’t you really make sure the raid wasn’t going to be conducted by the Keystone Kops, instead of rubber stamping these things like they obviously do now?

        1. In this case, it looks like the cops broke down the door of a *different* house than the one whose number was on the warrant. I’m guessing that that, by the way, should make this, as far as the Jakymeks’s house is concerned, a warrantless search and should make the cops unable to claim good faith reliance on the warrant when they defend themselves against Bivens suit for fourth amendment violations.

    3. Helpful, but unlikely to happen. They should at least make it impossible for cops to “choose” a judge, and instead assign the warrant review randomly — then they’ll have to hedge against getting that one judge that gives a shit. Of course, if there aren’t any judges that give a shit, you probably have the sort of problems best solved by judicious application of the guillotine

  21. “With her husband already asleep, 84-year-old Anna Jakymek was just turning out the lights when she heard loud noises at the back and front doors about 11:30 p.m.

    Her initial thought was that her 89-year old husband…”
    and
    “Everything was violently opened. Cabinets were ripped open, clothes and sheets were everywhere, and pieces of wood where the doors were rammed were all over the place,”

    To me, this is the crux of the problem with gubermint – the total, uncompromizing lack of brain use. Jebus, its bad enough not to be able to read house addresses, but than your looking at an 84 and 89 year old, and it just doesn’t occur to you that you don’t have to rip the house apart? Really???? Not one of the police present said “whoa…dude…these people look too old to be selling drugs???”

    1. this is the crux of the problem with gubermint – the total, uncompromizing lack of brain use.

      Who else signs up for cradle to grave employment?

  22. Not one of the police present said “whoa…dude…these people look too old to be selling drugs???”

    They weren’t looking for drugs, they were looking for the dog. They didn’t want it to be a completely wasted trip, after all.

  23. 20 cops are needed to raid the home of one harmless elderly couple.

    How many cops are then needed to apprehend some actual criminal?

  24. OK, you guys want a cops/dog/suspect story? Well here’s one from the bizarro world.

    1. Oh, and the story is worth reading just for the comments. Rarely do you see such a blend of racism, Obama-bashing and right-wing lunacy from Connecticut.

  25. “When I arrived the officer explained they had misinformation, but said his job was over, and he was leaving. They left a copy of the warrant, but he absolved himself of any responsibility for the raid or the damage,” Andrew Jakymec said.

    Fucking amazing.

  26. Ring the fucking doorbell?

    Is that so fucking hard?

  27. They should count themselves lucky they didn’t turn out like Fred Clark and Mark Hampton, who also used to live in Cook County.

  28. Hmm, well at least they didn’t get turned into adult protevtive services.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.