Civil Liberties

St. Paul Cops Shoot Dog in Wrong-Door Raid, Force Handcuffed Kids to Sit Near the Corpse


A St. Paul, Minnesota family claims in a lawsuit that police officers who conducted a wrong-door raid on their home shot their dog, and then forced their three handcuffed children to sit near the dead pet while officers ransacked the home. The lawsuit, which names Ramsey County, the Dakota County Drug Task Force, and the DEA, and asks for $30 million in civil rights violations and punitive damages after a wrong-door raid, also claims that the officers kicked the children and deprived one of them of her diabetes medication. 

The suit also alleges that one of the lead officers with the task force "provided false information" in order to get a warrant to raid the Franco family's home. (That information being the Franco family's address, and not that of their supposedly criminal neighbor Rafael Ybarra.)

And boy, did Ybarra miss out on a horrific raid. Courthouse News reports:

But on the night of July 13, 2010, the task force broke down the Francos' doors, "negligently raided the home of plaintiffs, by raiding the wrong home and physically brutalizing all the above-named occupants of said house," the complaint states.

Even after learning that they were in the wrong house, the complaint states, the drug busters stayed in the Francos' home and kept searching it.

They "handcuffed all of the inhabitants of the plaintiffs' home except plaintiff Analese Franco who was forced, virtually naked, from her bed onto the floor at gunpoint by officers of the St. Paul Police Department SWAT team and officers of the St. Paul Police Department."

The complaint states: "Upon forcibly breaching the plaintiffs' home, defendants terrorized the plaintiffs at gun and rifle point.

"Each plaintiff was forced to the floor at gun and rifle point and handcuffed behind their backs.

"Defendants shot and killed the family dog and forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour while defendants continued to search the plaintiffs' home."

One child "was kicked in the side, handcuffed and searched at gunpoint," the family says.

Another child, a girl, "a diabetic, was handcuffed at gunpoint and prevented by officer from obtaining and taking her medication, thus induced a diabetic episode as a result of low-blood sugar levels."

Shawn Scovill of the taskforce may have raided the wrong house, but he didn't want to let the opportunity to rifle through someone's things go to waste. So he and his team ransacked the Franco house for over an hour, and managed to find a .22 caliber pistol in the "basement bedroom of Gilbert Castillo," which the suit says they attributed to the head of the Franco household, Roberto Franco. According to the suit, Franco was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, and remains behind bars. (If anyone can weigh in on the legal loophole that might allow evidence seized during a wrong-door raid to be used in court, please fill me in. Also, are Minnesota gun laws that strict?) 

Since the DEA is named in the suit, the Francos' legal team will likely find itself going head-to-head with Obama administration lawyers, who argued a similar case earlier this year before the Ninth Circuit. Short recap of the proceedings: The DOJ sought a summary dismissal of a lawsuit filed against seven DEA agents for their rough treatment of a family of four–mother, father, two very young daughters–during a wrong-door raid conducted during the Bush administration. The Ninth Circuit, denied the DOJ's request for a summary dismissal, and drew a bright line between how adults are treated during raids, and how children are treated during raids. 

So there's reason to hope that any request of a summary dismissal of the Francos' case (by local law or federal attorneys) won't fly based simply on allegations that the children were cuffed, kicked, deprived of medicine, and made to sit near their dead pet for an hour. But I don't think suing over the wrong-door aspect will get the Franco family very far, unless they can prove the mistake on the warrant was intentional and that the officers were aware of the address error before the raid was conducted. 

NEXT: Conservatives Attack French President Over Lack of Leadership on Syria

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Whew. At least they were able to get an arrest out of all that hard work.

    1. And all the officers were safe – God Be Praised!

      1. I thought Shiva watched over cops?

        1. That would make sense since he/she is the destroyer of worlds.

          1. But he also brought cannabis to mankind, so does he watch over drug cops?

            1. Well, if the god wants mankind to have cannabis, wouldn’t that make someone trying to prevent us from having cannabis an enemy of the gods?

    2. This isn’t funny and it could happen to you!

  2. Must have been some dangerous looking kids to cuff, put face down and hold a rifle on them. I guess they could count themselves lucky they weren’t given the rifle butt to the teeth.

    1. don’t forget there was a girl going into diabetic shock there too. Imagine the carnage she could unleash if she weren’t gagging on a gun barrel

    2. You only do that because you are a sadistic fuck who enjoys terrorizing kids.

      1. No, I think it’s much more from sheer cowardice than sadism. Though both play a part.

        1. My guess is the kids were freaked out so the only solution the cop could come up with was, naturally, to handcuff them. He must be a hell of a parent.

          1. Procedures were followed.

            1. The Mafia has procedures too. No one ever argued that they overrode statutes or the constitution.

              And generally speaking, the Mafia never swore sacred oaths to uphold the constitution and laws.

          2. He must be a hell of a parent.

            My God! They’re breeding?

          3. Don’t forget how that was naturally proceeded by kicking them.

        2. Officer safety! Officer safety!

    3. Yeah, they were real lucky, asshole. Hope all those pigs get what’s coming to them.

    4. Sadly, this is standard procedure with police. Their “job” since they do not believe in “Protect and Serve” anymore is to contain the area. This means causing fear, showing they are in control, and locking up any loose targets. They tell us it is for the safety of the officers and those involved; however, what it really is about is control and psychological warfare. 98% of the time, they do not even need weapons; however, they come loaded to the teeth with heavy armaments to induce shock and awe and to a lesser degree, suggest fighting is pointless. “Resistance if Futile” is the way they are coming across and if we allow what is happening in Chicago happen elsewhere, we will experience real terror and who will be responsible, the government that restricted our freedoms and forced us into submission. We must challenge authority; however, in non-violent means due to the simple fact, we are outgunned.


  4. Reading articles like this and I want to build a house… with a moat draw bridge.

    1. damn you, reason, and your hatred of ampersands.

      1. I can’t find where the ampersand went.

        1. The HampersandR squirrels are hoarding them for the long winter to come.

          1. That moat, you didn’t build that.

            1. But you damned well better get the right permits, constructing an artificial wetland around your home. And if it keeps any rainwater or snowmelt, you might owe the people downstream.

              1. If that moat is more than 18 inches deep you had better have a five foot fence surrounding it along with an alarm on open for the drawbridge. You know, for the children.

                Oh wait, that moat will naturally have to occur in the front yard. No sorry, that will be an attractive nuisance and not permitted. Plus, you are only allowed a fence 3′-6″ in height in the front. So, you wouldn’t be able to properly enclose it anyway.

    2. That’s just an excuse for them to bring in the tanks and go Waco on your ass. As sarcasmic would say, “STOP RESISTING!”

      1. of course I’ve already (mentally) engineered some solutions around those types of problems. Wait, am I on “the list” now?

        1. Imagine the perplexed look on their fat dumb faces when someone someday unleashes a LAW rocket on one of their little tanks.

          Their will be much rejoicing.

          1. No.

            There will be much media hand-wringing about ‘heavily armed anti-government zealots’ and more calls for legislation to control such.

            1. The media are going to quietly sweep this story under the table. Amazing that it’s even reported here. No one cares. They’re more interested in Reality Star romances and other such fodder.

    3. And crocodiles or other assorted moat monsters. Maybe a Steve Smith or two.

      1. and you have to release the pack of dogs – hundreds of strays to keep the cops busy shooting.

        1. Even better if those dogs spit bees out of their mouths.

        2. You could empty out a few pit bull rescues.

        3. There’s not enough ammo in the world for my army of stray dogs!!!

      2. Sharks with lasers on their freakin’ heads perhaps?

    4. It also makes me want to build a house out of brick instead of 2×4 and wall board.

      1. I was thinking steel reinforced poured concrete.

        1. With a stucco facade, so they think it’s regular lath and plaster. Three inch thick solid steel door, with a wooden veneer. Lexan windows.

          1. I’m thinking this stuff would be better.

            1. For the windows.

      2. Seriously. We need to start thinking of how we can protect ourselves as these kind of stories become more common.

    5. Yeah the fire marshall will never go for that… and even if he did your bridge would have to be rated for his biggest 30 ton tanker of course…

  5. Even after learning that they were in the wrong house, the complaint states, the drug busters stayed in the Francos’ home and kept searching it.

    That makes it burglary. The victims should demand criminal prosecution of the perps.


    1. From the article:

      But I don’t think suing over the wrong-door aspect will get the Franco family very far, unless they can prove the mistake on the warrant was intentional and that the officers were aware of the address error before the raid was conducted.

      Burglary only applies to us common citizens. We can’t use the ignorance defense like LEOs can.

      1. Since they’ll probably be too chicken shit to do what needs to be done, they dserve it.

    2. Agree but it will never happen in a police state.

    3. Let me add a very corrupt, police state.

  6. Seriously though, how the fuck did they get a conviction based upon evidence collected from a search of the wrong house?

    I’m guessing that the poor guy’s public pretender convinced him to take a deal rather than face trial.

    1. I’m guessing that the poor guy’s public pretender convinced him to take a deal rather than face trial.

      Probably. But then again, the warrant was legit, right? Honest mistake and all that.

    2. What’s the legal term?

      Fruit from any tree?

      1. Hahaha. Or Inevitable Discovery has been extended to include any conceivable situation were the cops may have found this guys gun at any time in the future.

  7. Well, that’s different.

    1. No, the correct MN-an response is “Uffda”

      1. You betchya.

      2. Duck duck gray duck.

  8. The gun case will be thrown out. The only way you could get the gun admitted would be if it was in plain view. Hard to believe that a gun in the basement bedroom was in “plain view”. The fact that he is still in jail and the US attorney hasn’t dismissed the charges says all you need to know about the US Attorney. Anyone who has taken first year criminal procedure knows that gun is inadmissible. But the feds don’t give a shit. They will keep him in jail for a few months, ruin his life and then dismiss the case and tell the world how lucky this guy is and how benevolent they are.

    Pretty much the entire DOJ needs to be fired, every US attorney and every assistant. There are some good ones. But there are so many bad ones that the culture is irredeemably corrupt. The only way to fix it is to fire everyone and start over from scratch.

    1. John, the article says “convicted.” Does not this mean the trial has already concluded? If so, could he appeal and win?

      1. Good question. It is not clear. The only thing I can figure is that Franco was on probation and he got convicted of the probation or parole violation. Parolees really have no rights with regard to search and seizure. That would have prevented him from objecting to the admission of the gun. But absent that, I don’t see how he could have been convicted.

        1. was the gun his? It was in the bedroom of another individual. Was that individual barred from owning a gun? I know of a guy who is a convicted felon with a gun in his house because his wife owns the gun. She still has the right to keep and bear arms even if his own was taken away. So just because a gun is in the house of a parolee should not mean he is in violation.

          1. I’m not familiar with the details of this case or with St. Paul/Minnesota law, but I do know that some places, particularly Blue states with restrictive gun laws, have “presumptive possession” – if a gun is found in a place that someone has access to, they can be legally presumed to be in possession of it, whether it was actually theirs or not. Something like that might apply here.

            1. so since minors probably aren’t allowed to be in possession of a firearm, if any firearm is in the house that minors dwell in, they could be hauled off for possession as well?

              1. Why not. May as well give them the full package while they’re at it.

        2. FTA:
          In summary, the complaint states:…”Defendant, Shawn Scovill intentionally perjured himself in his sworn testimony on the witness stand at the suppression hearing and at the trial of plaintiff, Roberto Franco.
          “Defendant, Shawn Scovill intentionally misrepresented the facts of the criminal case against Roberto Franco in all documents following the arrest of, plaintiff Roberto Franco.
          “Defendant Shawn Scovill intentionally misrepresented the facts in the State’s criminal against plaintiff Gilbert Castillo when he said that Gilbert Castillo did not state that the confiscated weapon belonged to Gilbert Castillo.

          1. When the cops lie, that does tend to solve admissibility issues.

      2. Who said anything about a trial?

        Most likely the guy was bullied into taking a deal rather than prove himself innocent of a long list of false charges.

        1. To get a conviction, you have to go to trial, even if it is in front of a judge. Unless he took a deal, but a judge still has to sign off on the deal.

          1. Yes, and all that happens is the judge asks the prosecution to go over the facts, then the judge asks the defendant if he’s guilty and knows what he’s pleading to etc. It’s pretty rare for the judge to go into anymore depth than that.

        2. No doubt about it. I’m sure the term “your lucky” was thrown around quite a bit.

    2. The only way to fix it is to fire everyone and start over from scratch.

      How would that help?

      People don’t seek out power because they’re kind, they seek out power so they can use and abuse it.

      Throw the bums out and you’ll just get a new crop of bums.

      1. The way you fix it is to remove immunity. If the cops and the prosecutors had to face the same laws, with the corresponding consequences for fuck-ups, then the system would change.

        1. You’re right. But it will never happen.

        2. You bet your ass it would change. But laws are not in place to protect citizens. These monsters will always have immunity to terrorize the rest of us.

      2. We could conscript various high reputation private counsel – impress them for a term of 2-5 years as US Attorney, then let them work motion practice and appellate stuff from a halfway house fo 6 months, then let them go?

        1. I like that idea. Why do we have to have a permanent professional set of prosecutors? If we can draft soldiers, why can’t we draft lawyers. The job market for lawyers is so bad that I bet most people who were drafted would be happy to get a steady pay check. People are lining up for DOJ jobs.

          1. I’m an underemployed lawyer. If it meant that I could prosecute some worthless bankster crooks, I’d work for the DoJ for free. The joy of seeing corrupt assholes squirm on the witness stand would be payment enough.

      3. It would help. Not everyone who is a prosecutor is a bum. That is not true. And not every DA office is bad. Some of them are good. But DOJ is the worst. They are worse than the most crooked big city DA office. Talk to a professional defense attorney sometime. Every one I know will tell you that the states are much more fair and easier to deal with than the feds. The feds have a culture of arrogance and abuse that is really unmatched.

        You do have to have laws and courts and jails. And there is even a place for federal crimes, although 90% of those laws need to go. So you can’t get rid of the DOJ. But you can fire everyone associated with it. In an ideal world we would have months of Congressional hearings doing nothing but raking DOJ over the coals similar to the Church Commission. And at the end of it, every lawyer who works in the criminal division would be fired and be ashamed to put the experience on their resume.

        1. …Don’t you work at the DoJ?

          1. No Thank God.

        2. I don’t believe that good people seek out to enforce obviously unjust laws.
          They don’t care what the laws are. They care about having power.

          1. Believe it or not there are some real criminals out there.

            1. Believe it or not there are some real criminals out there.

              And they can all be handled by state prosecutors. The only reason to have a DOJ is to investigate and try state prosecutors. You could also use them for Admiralty law.

            2. Believe it or not there are some real criminals out there.

              And their crimes are being ignored so that cops and prosecuters can go after easy drug cases in order to get their conviction rates up.

              “Low-hanging fruit” and all that.

        3. “And there is even a place for federal crimes,”

          Yes, treason, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting, those are the only 3 federal crimes allowed by the Constitution. The UCMJ would be allowed, since Congress is given the ability to set the rules for the military.

          1. Every thing else is just misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

        4. Still, most of them are bums. Doesn’t matter if a person is innocent or not in their eyes.

      4. Seems to me you could improve this problem by going after the DEA rather than the DOJ. De-criminalize drugs, do away with the DEA (and the ATF, and ICE, etc.) How can you control prosecutors when they are charged with prosecuting everything because everything is illegal?

        1. That would help. But that wouldn’t kill the culture. You still will have some laws for these assholes to abuse.

          You need to do both, get a new DOJ and repeal about 90% of the laws they enforce.

          1. The core of the problem is poorly drafted legislation which is expansively interpreted and exploited by ambitious prosecutors and cops.

            How many times have Libertarians been told that their warnings about bad legislation are ‘needless’ because ‘that would never happen’?

            (I bet if we went back to the time that the Patriot Act was first proposed, we’d find that everything Libertarians warned about has come to pass.)

  9. Enjoy it, you deserve it, scum.

  10. Who would name their kid Analese?

    1. Who would name their kid Analese?

      Considering they were diabetic; Sugarfree??

      /I kid

    2. Oral Roberts?

      Col. Angus?

    3. K-Y’s Marketing VP?

    4. Pretty sure it’s a riffing on the roots “Anna” and “(E)lisa(beth)”. I know an “Annelies” (Dutch variant of the same).

      Yes, yes, I get your joke, btw. But it’s better than what I saw on the American women’s Olympic gymnastics team: McKayla. No shit, they took a Biblical name and made it a fake Scottish name, `a la that stupid habit of naming girls with Gaelic surnames.

  11. virtually naked

    so you had to wear futuristic goggles and a glove to tell?

  12. Goddammit. The last thing I want to read is more dunphy. Couldn’t this have waited until monday?

    1. He usually stays away from the clearly awful ones. But if that little girl had a gun in her hand…

  13. St. Paul’s sister city, Minneapolis, is just as bad. This morning, there was a woman sitting on the bench at my bus stop. As I drew near, two pig cruisers pulled up, one pulled up onto the sidewalk and the other blocked the west bound lane of 42nd Ave. She was a little high maybe, but that’s about it. They questioned her with things like “What day is it? and What are your plans for today?” She really was just sitting there minding her own business causing no harm. My bus came and I suspect they took her downtown for a tox-screening. But here’s the thing, maybe one of the ship pigs who posts here can tell me this – why do the fucking pigs (and these fuckers like the majority of pigs in my city were fatter than fuck) have to block a major street, forcing people into oncoming traffic, in order to talk to a woman on a bus bench? Worse still, when the cop first got out of their cars, one of them started to go for his gun. Jesus fucking Christ, it’s a fucking woman on a bench smoking a cigarette. I even said very loudly, “Why are you going for your gun” at which point he took his hand off of it,

    1. Officer safety! Officer safety!

    2. Driving home from work yesterday there was a car pulled over with the hazards on, and a couple milling about on the sidewalk. As I drove by a police cruiser did a u-turn and pulled behind them with his blues on.
      They actually looked pleased to see him.
      Looking in the mirror I saw that he didn’t get out immediately, he was on the radio.
      Shaved head and Oakley sunglasses.

      I doubt things went well for them.

    3. And you didn’t record the incident?

    4. The Mpls gestapo.
      I’ve lived and worked in Mpls, and witnessed similar situations.

  14. Stop running these kinds of stories. You’ll just warp some impressionable libertarian gun nut’s mind and he (or she) will start going postal on the fine LEOs and prosectuors who make these kinds of mistakes. The last thing we need is some crazy Ragnarian marksman taking out these dudes when they are walking out of, say, a restaurant two years from now without a care in the world.

    1. Yeah, that would be awful. Awful, I say.
      That is, awful for the restaurant owner(s) as they would lose business while 200 cops walk around aimlessly on the property pretending to be part of the investigation.

  15. Jesus Christ. I think that even if it were the right house and the people were guilty as hell, they would deserve $30 million for the way the cops behaved. How the fuck is it acceptable for them to routinely ransack places when they have search warrants. The search would probably be more effective too if they did it carefully and methodically without breaking shit or making a mess. Assholes.

    1. But if they didn’t break stuff and make a mess, then they wouldn’t be able to demonstrate that they have POWER and nobody would respect their AUTHORITY.

    2. Exactly!!!! What justifies treating any citizen like this? Funny that these dirtbags are never around when you need them.

  16. alt-text:Coming soon to your neighborhood, dog killing cowards.

  17. He has been convicted, in a state court, of a state charge. (There is only one Roberto Franco listed in the Minnesota Department of Corrections database, and he’s there on a weapons charge). It appears he was convicted of violating M.S.A. 624.713.1(2), which essentially is being in possession of a firearm if previously convicted of a crime of violence. Minnesota defines “crime of violence as follows: felony convictions of the following offenses: murder; manslaughter; aiding suicide and aiding attempted suicide; assault; crimes committed for the benefit of a gang; use of drugs to injure or facilitate crime; simple robbery; aggravated robbery; kidnapping; false imprisonment; prostitution; sex trafficking; criminal sexual conduct; malicious punishment of a child; neglect or endangerment of a child; commission of crime while wearing or possessing a bullet-resistant vest; theft of a firearm, theft of a motor vehicle, theft of property from a burning, abandoned, or vacant building, or from an area of destruction caused by civil disaster, riot, bombing, or the proximity of battle, and theft of a controlled substance, an explosive, or an incendiary device; arson; burglary; drive-by shooting; unlawfully possessing a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun; riot; terroristic threats; stalking; shooting at a public transit vehicle or facility; and drugs, controlled substances; and an attempt to commit any of these offenses.

    1. In what way does this justify the events in this situation?

      1. Not saying it does. But there has been considerable discussion as to whether he had been convicted, and whether it was a federal charge. This would appear to answer those questions.

        I’m curious as to why Mr. Franco’s attorney didn’t challenge the propriety of the search, particularly as Minnesota doesn’t accept the good faith exception to the warrant requirement.

    2. They’ll prob lock the poor guy up to boot. And from the description above, sounds like he needed that gun based off this home invasion.

  18. Factual problem with the brief. If the girl was having a LOW blood sugar incident, she didn’t need medication. She needed food. /pedant

    But yeah, police powers these days are scary. Used to be that maybe a few bad guys got away, there was a little corruption, and most everybody else didn’t have to worry about much. Now I feel like it’s mostly blind luck if you don’t have a negative run in with the police.

    1. As a general rule of thumb, I always try to avoid cops when possible. Their presence alone makes me uneasy and no, I’m not a criminal.

  19. With all the other fucked up things they did to these poor people and their dog who’s to say they didn’t plant that gun just to make it all look just.

    1. Seriously. That doesn’t sound far fetched.

  20. The address on the warrant was the same as the house they assaulted, even though it was not the house they wanted.

    That also may allow them to use evidence they collected.

  21. Makes me sleep better knowing that we are protected by such brave officers of the law…God Bless this Police State…

  22. Yeah, and the USA hasn’t become a police state. bah.

  23. The whole DOJ needs to have an axe taken to it.

    Any police office taking part in a wrong house raid needs to have his sovereign immunity removed, he should be summarily dismissed with no pension or benefits and his certificate revoked, the next two levels of supervisor should go, and the judge that signed the warrant shoud be impeached if the warrant specified the wrong person/address.

    If we do that once or twice, the whole problem goes away.

    1. The DEA should be the first department of the DOJ chopped. Since the mandate for the DEA is to enforce the controlled substance act, drugs, which are rampant in a “free” society like ours. The DEA has massive leeway to do shit like this or this.

    2. I agree on the point about summary dismissal and revocation of sovereign immunity, but the Judge who signed off on a faulty warrant shouldn’t be impeached, the Judge should have to commit seppuku to atone for their colossal f*ckup. I’m not even sure any of them would have to fall on a sword for the problem to correct itself; the mere threat would be enough to make them veeeeeeery careful about what they sign off on.

  24. Hey that’s the same department that detained me for a day and a half for no reason. Fine job, you worthless pussies.

    Honestly, we’ve put up with this crap long enough.

  25. For anyone that is a legal junkie and wants to read the actual brief by Franco’s attorney, I have downloaded it from Pacer and placed it on Scribd at the following link.

  26. People only care about what they’re personally affected by. If it’s not their house being illegally raided, their dog being shot and their children being brutalized then they don’t care.

    If they did then marijuana would’ve been legally regulated like wine many years ago. Keeping marijuana illegal doesn’t achieve anything as it doesn’t stop people consuming marijuana. It does, however, create massive harm in the form of 10,000 brutal murders 800,000 needless arrests every year, and a $40 Billion bill to taxpayers each year.

    However, if it’s not *their* kids dying then nobody really cares.

  27. There’s no way these poor people can come out on top over “the man.” This really is terrible and disgusting. Bottom line, the only good cop, is a dead cop.

  28. We’re in the grip of Orwell’s 1984. Folks need to stand together and support these people before this sort of activity becomes the norm. This could happen to anyone.

    1. Before? It already is.

  29. Anyway, that’s one more state to add to the “no visit” list.

  30. These stupid thugs, first off should not be given all this power to be breaking into anybody’s house first of all. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent and put in prison right with the people they threw in there over this stupid drug war!!!

  31. The following is a legal definition called “Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine” which would disqualify any “tainted” evidence found during the illegal search and it states that evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in a court of law. The doctrine is based on the rule that evidence obtained through illegal search or illegal interrogation taints not only evidence obtained but also facts discovered by the process. Although, this doctrine expressly states that such evidence cannot be admitted as evidence against a defendant, there are some exceptions to this doctrine. They are:

    1. when the evidence was partely discovered as a result of an independent, untainted source;

    2. when the evidence would inevitably been discovered despite the tainted source;

    3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or

    4. the search warrant that was not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith.

  32. The only one of these exceptions that could possibly provide a legal loophole would, by the slimmest of margins, be # 4. I doubt that anyone could argue that there was even a sliver of “good faith” in an incorrect, poorly researched and completely overzealous warrant being enacted to the point where children are assaulted at gunpoint, their right to privacy violated, their right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness expunged, and their right to innocence stripped away from them by jack-booted, black garbed and masked, gun toting, violent and uncaring, automaton drones who masquerade as “Peace Officers”. “To Protect and Serve”….THE STATE is about as close to “good faith” as it goes…but then again, they will be tried BY the State so the chances of any sort of justice for this unfortunate family are slim at best. Can anyone say…COVER-UP? Poor Roberto will likely have his rights squashed by the same State who sent in the SWAT gorillas in the first place. Shame on the “Justice System” if this family is forced to watch their role model being further brutalised by “The State” which is supposed to “Protect Serve” them.

  33. This is an outrageous and disturbing story. However, I went on Google to find any kind of legitimate corroboration, i.e. local news accounts, and was unable to find anything to back up this story. Seems to me that such a monumental police screw up would have at least made the local news. I’d love to see some kind of corroboration on this.

  34. This is an outrageous and disturbing story. However, I went on Google to find any kind of legitimate corroboration, i.e. local news accounts, and was unable to find anything to back up this story. Seems to me that such a monumental police fuck up would have at least made the local news. I’d love to see some kind of corroboration on this.

  35. shame on you shawn scovill you are a sick POS sick for handcuffing children which is child abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sick because you murdered their pet which is animal abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sick because you denied a child her diabetic medication!!!!!!!!!!!! which is medical negligence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i hope you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and go to prison and spend the rest of your natural life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! same for your cohorts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  36. Everyday, life seems to get more Orwellian as we are told “Evil is Good, and Good is Evil.” This case is disgusting; however, it is now so commonplace, it hardly merits news, at least to the news media. Something the story omits; however, reflects the criminality of LOE’s in this case is that Officer Scovill attempted to bribe Fransisco “not to pursue civil redress.” When will we ever learn, that law enforcement should be handled by the people, not an overbearing court system that is set to generate revenue as opposed to dispense justice?

  37. Dog being gunned down by law enforcement is rampant throught the nation. It happened recently here, just three hrs from St. Paul. You can read about it on the Justice for Rugar page on facebook or view the videos on YouTube – Rugar’s Story Part I, and Rugar’s Story Part II.

    This really needs to stop!

  38. p.s. And Rugar’s story wasn’t reported in his own community. What kind of hold does the sheriff’s office have over media anyway? What a disgrace. And Sheriff Litman not only stands by his deputy but is trying to turn the blame back onto the family. wtf? Seriously, watch the videos.

  39. All exaggerations aside, every cunt cop involved, deserves death.

    For every incident like this the public should spark a riot straight away, the objective of such riot? Murdering the officers involved.

    1. I STRONGLY agree with you. As humans we can not tolerate this in any way. They are worst then terrorist because they took an oath to “Protect and Serve” and on that day someone purposelessly choose not.

  40. I Strongly hope that all officers involved die in the most painful way possible for what they did to innocent people, and to kill the dog and FORCE the minors to sit next to it’s body leaves me sick to the very pit of my stomach. Everything about what they did is very F’ed a billion eternity’s in HELL would not be enough for these people. I’m going to pray every night for the rest of my life that they personally get what’s coming to them (not just suspend them with or without pay but JAIL for a long time). I do NOT care about officers who break the law to get a warrant then go to the completely wrong place. I hope with all that’s good in our world that they all get put to death for the lives that they ruined the scars that will follow the victims forever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.