Search and Seizure

'Bou Bou's Law' Would Restrict No-Knock Police Raids

A horribly injured toddler inspires legislation to rein in drug warriors.

|

Phonesavanh family

In response to a botched drug raid that gravely injured a toddler last May, a Georgia state legislator has introduced a bill that would impose new restrictions on warrants that allow police to enter homes unannounced. Bou Bou's Law—which Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta) named for Bounkham "Bou Bou" Phonesavanh, the 19-month-old boy who was nearly killed by a flash-bang grenade tossed into his crib—would allow "no knock" warrants only in cases where the police can show "probable cause that if an officer were to knock and announce identity and purpose before entry, such act of knocking and announcing would likely pose a significant and imminent danger to human life or imminent danger of evidence being destroyed." That rule is stricter than the standard the Supreme Court has said is required by the Fourth Amendment: "reasonable suspicion" that knocking and announcing "would be dangerous or futile" or "would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime."

According to Carrie Mills, a retired Atlanta cop who "considers herself an expert on search warrants," the change proposed by Fort would be reckless. "If we knock and announced, all evidence is going to be destroyed," she told WTOC, the CBS station in Savannah. "You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both."

The Framers probably would have disagreed. In any event, the "crime" Mills has in mind consists of voluntary transactions involving arbitrarily proscribed intoxicants. If I have to choose between my privacy and vainly trying to stop people from getting high in ways that Carrie Mills does not like, that is a pretty easy choice.

The no-knock raid that injured Bou Bou, which was carried out by a Habersham County SWAT team, was aimed at his cousin, Wanis Thonetheva, a small-time meth dealer who no longer lived in the house where the boy was staying with his parents and sisters. It is certain that if people like Mills did not use violence to shut down such entrepreneurs, Bou Bou would not have been burned and mutilated by an errant "distraction device," he would not have to undergo a series of surgeries that will continue into adulthood, and his family would not be stuck with $1.6 million in medical expenses. That outcome also might have been avoided if police, who said they had no idea children were present in the home, had done even the most rudimentary surveillance before knocking down the door.

It is less clear to me that the rule imposed by Fort's bill would have saved Bou Bou and his family from all that suffering. For one thing, although no weapons (or drugs) were found in the house and Thonetheva was unarmed when he was arrested at a different location later that day, the cops claimed he was apt to be armed and dangerous, citing a history of gun charges. I'm not sure that would qualify as probable cause to believe that knocking and announcing would pose "a significant and imminent danger to human life," but it might.

Even if police had knocked and announced themselves before entering the house, it might not have made any difference. It was the middle of the night, and everyone in the house was asleep, so it seems unlikely they would have heard and understood the police, let alone that they would have had enough time to answer the door before it was knocked down. Police are supposed to wait a "reasonable time" after announcing themselves, but it is not clear what that means. According to a 2003 Supreme Court decision, the relevant question is not how long it takes to answer the door but how long it takes to flush the drugs. In that case, the Court said 15 to 20 seconds was plenty of time. For people awakened in the middle of the night, that is probably not enough.

Another Georgia bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville), would raise the evidentiary standard for no-knock warrants and require that they be executed between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. "unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes execution at another time." That begins to address the safety issues raised by middle-of-the-night raids, which include the very real risk that cops will be be mistaken for burglars and shot. A similar timing expectation for all searches would help make the knock-and-announce rule more meaningful.

NEXT: Vaccination and the law

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.

  1. When I think of my own child being injured like that, I envision myself in prison for all the things I would do to the bastards who did it.

    1. Ditto.

    2. I agree, assuming we weren’t present and found out after the fact.

      Had it happened while we were home? Let’s face it, we’d be dead.

  2. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    Funny how she seems to think that doing away with no-knock raids is a privacy issue, rather than a safety issue, and how no-knock raids are essential to police work.

    Ya know, if your job requires you to kick down doors, throw grenades, handcuff children, and point guns at people’s heads, maybe you need to take a good hard look at your job.

    1. The job doesn’t require that. When there is a real threat to officer safety they lure the suspect out and get them that way. Like what they did with Whitey Bulger.

      The do these things for fun, and for the adrenaline and endorphin high*.

      *Ironic how those who fight the war against morally unacceptable highs do so in a manner in which they get morally acceptable highs.

  3. For once a [Child’s Name] Law that I can support!

    1. Yes, it’s amazing.

  4. According to a 2003 Supreme Court decision, the relevant question is not how long it takes to answer the door but how long it takes to flush the drugs. In that case, the Court said 15 to 20 seconds was plenty of time.

    What a stupid decision, as the amount of time it takes to flush the drugs depends entirely on how much we’re talking about.

    When the warrant is for a grow house, we’re talking hours (not including the time the plumber will need to clear your toilet).

    1. Child hater, you want the druggies to win.

      1. Of course he does. How else are we supposed to keep our child slaves docile if not for drugs?

        1. Those monocles aren’t going to polish themselves!

    2. “If we knock and announced, all evidence is going to be destroyed,”

      Apparently, they never bust anybody who has more than a baggie at a time.

      1. “If they flush all the drugs, we don’t get to steal the house!”

        I hate them.

      2. Exactly. If they can get rid of all the evidence in one or two flushes, maybe it wasn’t the drug warehouse they thought it was.

      3. Apparently, they never bust anybody who has more than a baggie at a time.

        Which, 99% of the time is probably true. Damning their tactics even more.

    3. the amount of time it takes to flush the drugs depends entirely on how much we’re talking about.

      Not to mention the toilet in question. You can’t even flush a turd and 2 squares of toilet paper down these new low-flow models.

      1. Only two squares? I require ten times that amount just to do the initial reconnaissance.

    4. When the warrant is for a grow house, we’re talking hours (not including the time the plumber will need to clear your toilet).

      Fucking eh! Do you goddamned homework Officer Numbnuts!

      Figure out what time they get up to shit/shower and start cooking. Have the local municipality pogue kill the water shortly beforehand, then knock on the fucking door. No water, no toilet flush.

      Wells won’t pump water without electricity and few and far between are the houses with wells that aren’t tied to septic tanks.

      1. Toilets have tanks. Even if you cut off the water you have one flush left.

  5. About fucking time.

    1. Don’t get your hopes up. If anything like this is done, it will be done in such a way that the exceptions swallow the rule.

      1. Yeah, the template for requesting a warrant will just be amended to include the magic words “such act of knocking and announcing would likely pose a significant and imminent danger to human life or imminent danger of evidence being destroyed”.

        Rubber stamps gonna rubber stamp.

        Goons gonna goon.

        Same as it ever was.

        1. And then the Supreme Court Justices will show shock at the idea that the magic words could be abused.

        2. Can you imagine the shrieks of outrage if a bill was proposed that said, in effect, that if the suspect or evidence named in the warrent weren’t at the address the cops busted into, the cops got to face beaking amd entering charges?

      2. It’s just the first grain of sand on the scales to tip it the other way.

  6. How will they know evidence will be destroyed if they don’t know there’s evidence?

    1. Shhhhh, Susan! You’re giving the game away!

      1. Informants never lie and are always correct, Susan. Why do you question these things?

        1. Whenever there isn’t anything there, then the toilet ate it.

          Ban indoor toilets!

          For the children!

      2. Dangnabit! There I go, thinking again.

    2. How will they know evidence will be destroyed if they don’t know there’s evidence?

      That’s why the need the no-knock raid, so they can find out what’s in it.

  7. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    Fine, then. Fuck the community if that’s the case.

    1. If we just got rid of that evil bill of rights, everyone could be safe!

    2. You’re right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure is part of our constitution. It say’s nothing about the right to a crime-free environment. So it seems pretty obvious where the line should be drawn in this absurd false dichotomy.

    3. Reporter: I need a quote from a law enforcer. I know! Scary Carrie used to be a cop somewhere. Oh MAN! the boys at the bar are gonna shit themselves laughing when they see I got one of Scary Carrie’s stupid sayings published BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    4. Its not even a privacy issue. There’s a warrant; you’re gonna get searched. This is about how the warrant is served.

      1. I’m sure that the former cop thought she was saying something profound, but in fact it was utter nonsense. It doesn’t even qualify as a non sequitur. It’s just nonsense.

    5. A cunt in need of a cunt punch.

  8. The wording of the law doesn’t sound like it would change anything. Here’s how it would go under the new law:

    Judge: “Do you have reasonable suspicion that if you knocked and announced you or the evidence would be in danger?”
    Cop: “Yes, your honor”
    Judge: “Sounds good to me!” *signs warrant*

    1. add to this that I’m generally against laws named after children…

      it’s a good sign that someone wants to do something… right?

      1. …it’s a good sign that someone wants to do something… right?

        It’s a good sign that someone wants it to appear that something is being done – so as to take the heat of public disapproval off.

    2. Yeah, I think you would have to get some more language in the bill, including proof that surveillance has been performed on the premises. And that evidence should go in front of the judge.

      Very likely, you would just see the cops falsify or omit evidence that doesn’t comport to probably cause[1]. But the consequences of getting caught tampering with evidence for a judge are much higher then claiming to have made a mistake.

      [1] It’s noteworthy that the law requires “Probable Cause” not “Reasonable suspicion as Kristen posits. The standard of evidence is higher for the former. Still possible to circumvent, but harder.

      1. you would just see the cops falsify or omit evidence

        They do that anyway. It’s standard procedure.

        1. Exactly this. What people fail to realize is that cops don’t obey laws, so no amount of law passing is ever going to do anything about the problem.

    3. I thought the same thing. Its funny that nobody is considering the evidence gathering and tactical error that this law simply would not address. The cops had bad intel, they ignored obvious evidence of children, and engaged in reckless disregard for the safety of all parties, including their own. Raising the standard for issuance of a no-knock warrant, based on the bad intel and cop-hunches, about armed resistance and evidence destruction doesn’t address any of those mistakes.

  9. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    False dilemma. Communities don’t have rights, especially rights to utopian shit.

    1. Communities and other groups have only the rights that each individual possesses as an individual – no more, no less. Unfortunately they do seem to have more powers whether that’s logically, morally, or even legally justified.

  10. also, the ad that is FUCKING AUTOPLAYING in this page shows a woman asking a kid if he wants a greenie.

    I know it’s a dog dental bone… but isn’t that also an amphetamine? the police will no knock raid that company.

    1. I’m not the only one then. Auto play anything usually gets the page closed.

      1. ABP master race.

        Get yours today: https://adblockplus.org/

  11. my roomate’s aunt makes $82 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for eight months but last month her income was $21833 just working on the laptop for a few hours. view it……
    ?????? http://www.netcash50.com

  12. would allow “no knock” warrants only in cases where the police can show “probable cause that if an officer were to knock and announce identity and purpose before entry, such act of knocking and announcing would likely pose a significant and imminent danger to human life

    Look, while I admire the political grandstanding of this Senator, since for once the grandstanding is for a good cause, that’s still all it is.

    Everything you need to know about this is in the paragraph that I pasted above. This is more than a loophole, since it would actually render this bill null and void of any meaning. Because there is ALWAYS an imminent danger to human life, the life of the COP.

    Sorry to try to take away significance from this, but that’s how I see it.

    If you want to end this non-sense, then just make no knock raids illegal, period.

    1. Any raid in which human life would not be in danger will still fall under the danger of evidence being destroyed. The legislation is meaningless.

      1. Yep, and also, as I said, the cops will always say they had to do it because they felt unsafe knocking on the door during the day time. And nothing else will happen.

        1. That’s about sums it up.

      2. When isn’t a uniformed officer’s life in danger?

        1. It’s always in danger. But when there’s a Yorkie or Chihuahua puppy in the immediate vicinity, it goes up to like red alert status!

        2. Most of the time. Seriously.

  13. “…or imminent danger of evidence being destroyed.”

    Well, what a step forward. The reason given for practically all no-knock drug raids is the “imminent danger of evidence being destroyed.”

    Bah, nothing more than feel good legislation that does absolutely nothing except make ole Sen. Vincent Fort seem like a real nice guy who fights ( to do nothing ) for his constituents.

  14. Also, you have, on the one, hand small-time users who can flush their blunts and rocks after a knock-and-announce. Then you have the large operators who could not possibly dispose of their inventory after hearing the knock-and-announce.

    So then that begs the question: why are you using no-knock, fully-armored SWAT raids for small-time users?

    1. OK, I would like an edit button just for misplaced commas. Sonofabitch.

    2. Because it’s fun?

      1. Why the question mark?

        1. Always answer a question with a question.

          1. Why the period then?

            1. Because he was being ironic?

          2. “John Galt|1.23.15 @ 2:19PM|#

            Always answer a question with a question.”

            But don’t follow your own advice .

      2. It was more of a rhetorical question aimed at that ignorant bint “search warrant expert”.

      3. To steal their property?

    3. Because it’s fun to play army guy! And, it’s so much safer than the real thing, where you know, people shoot back and shit…

      /the cops

      1. Plus they probably get triple time pay for the off hours work

    4. Because they can.

      I think people underestimate the laziness factor with cops. They will always go after the easy targets, the small time users who aren’t dangerous. Their incentives all push them to get as many arrests as possible for stats. Add in the ability to dress up in tactical gear and smash down doors, and you have today’s policing. Oh, and don’t forget zero accountability.

      1. I remember when I was a teen in Cincy, I was talking to a friend of mine whose dad was a cop.

        We were talking about some of the violent crime that had been happening in bad parts of the city and about how he was fighting with his dad because his parents found some weed in his bedroom again.

        He told me that the cops don’t go down to those areas because it’s dangerous and shit, and they’d rather cruise around our neighborhood and try to bust some kids for pot or something else trivial. I thought at the time he’s just being cynical but now I tend to think it was true.

        1. Dude, it’s a job where the person is out by themselves or with a partner, unsupervised. They can go pretty much where they want and do what they want. And all their supervisor requires is them hitting some quotas for arrests. The supervisor doesn’t care where those arrests are from or particularly what they’re for. Do you think they’re going to go where it’s dangerous, or do what is easy?

          1. An cop acquaintance of mine spends large amounts of her shift sitting in her own apartment. Better there than on the streets, I say.

            1. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s how they basically do it here where I live. Seems to work very well. They take their vehicles home with them which creates a deterrent simply by the fact there’s LE vehicles parked all over the community. And they’re on call so ready to respond if something does happen. And best of all they’re not out looking for trouble. Bored people looking for trouble have a tendency to find trouble usually by making it.

              1. The acquaintance I’m referring to works a gentrifying, yet high crime, area of DC. However, I think it’s just fine that she was indoors watching What Not to Wear instead of on the streets busting heads. Anyway, she recently got promoted, so I doubt she’s doing too much couch surfing anymore.

                1. I’ve had one (bad) run-in with the DC police, and for that one incident there were way too many cops who showed up. It would be in the public interest to get some of them to stay home.

                2. Better than the pair of DC cops that took my lunch money for the week because I was “a white boy walking in the wrong neighborhood.”

                  I also found out what happens when you try to file a complaint against theiving police officers. It involves handcuffs and a convenient hooker in the next holding cell over.

          2. If they went out and did the hard work, then they wouldn’t need special task forces. What would cops do without special task forces? Life would be so boring.

          3. During that Boston clusterfuck when the cops had the entire city on lock down, cops were bragging about all the overtime they were getting. Like overtime to sleep. Seriously. They were being paid round the clock. That must have cost the taxpayers millions in cop overtime.

        2. One a long time ago a cop friend and I were snorting a few lines of coke. His radio went off that shots were fired in a domestic incident not far away. He turned his radio down and said, ” I’ll wait for the bullets to stop flying and then head over there”.

    5. Because… they have these SWAT teams and, Goddamnit to hell, they’re going to use ’em!

  15. Oh, sure, no hat tip.

    There’s a different bill (by a Republican ex-cop, IIRC, so stands a slightly better chance of actually passing) that would prohibit no-knock raids between 10 pm and 6 am unless you told the judge you really, really needed it.

    1. Whoops, guess I should read all of the article before throwing my $.02 in.

    2. Sounds like the Ds and Rs are competing to see who can look best passing legislation that does nothing.

    3. Judge: You need one more “really” to meet the standard..

  16. It’s kind of sad that you have to actually pass a law telling cops it’s not kosher to bust into homes unannounced on anonymous tips from criminal snitches and blow up babies with hand grenades. You’d think the constitution would take care of that if common sense and good discretion didn’t.

    1. You overlook the importance of Officer Safety.

      #Officerlivesmattermost

  17. What sort of monster would endanger our noble law enforcement professionals by forcing them to consider the consequences of their actions?

    OFFICER SAFETY trumps any petty concerns on the behalf of the peasantry.

  18. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    Define “crime” you cunt.

    1. So now there’s a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. If we really want crime-free communities maybe we’ll need to quit making everything under the Sun a crime. The only other option is a lock-down concentration camp style reorganizing of the community. Which in itself would be a horrific crime, pointing us back to ceasing the making of practically everything in the world a crime as the only path to crime-free communities.

  19. So if I have a right to live in a crime-free community, can I sue the police if a crime is successfully committed against me?

    1. Most likely no. Which in itself seems like a crime.

  20. Omar comin’.

    Omar comin’.

  21. No-knock raids are actually incredibly more dangerous to the police than standard knock-and-announce searches.

    Somebody is much more likely to get violent if he feels his home is being invaded (seriously, how is he supposed to know it’s the police in the confusion?) and start shooting everything that moves, resulting in police injuries/deaths. In a knock and announce, he will see he is outnumbered and take the 10 seconds he has to (hopefully) come to the conclusion that surrendering is a better option.

    1. That seems completely reasonable. And there has been numerous cases, just that I’m aware of, where the no-knock raid was mistaken for a home invasion by criminals causing the occupants to react in self defense.

      1. The cops want this because it gives them an excuse to kill people. Seriously. Go to a bar where cops hang out, and eavesdrop on them after they’ve had a few drinks. You’ll discover that many of them sought out the job specifically so as to have an opportunity to get away with murder. I’m sure you’ll also hear some excited stories about choking people. Cops really enjoy choking people.

        1. Don’t need to go that far. Just read policeone.com

      2. where the no-knock raid was mistaken for a home invasion by criminals the residents

        1. Why would residents do an invasion of their own home?

        2. I think John Galt (no relation) meant that the occupants were mistaken about the raid being committed by criminals, not that criminals were mistaken about the raid being committed.

    2. Especially when they start climbing in your window before they break the door down.

    3. In a knock and announce, he will see he is outnumbered and take the 10 seconds he has to (hopefully) come to the conclusion that surrendering is a better option.

      Not to mention that, if you have that big a drop on someone and you manage to lose it all, you kinda deserve to get chewed out, lose your job, etc.

      I’d bet before the days of no-knock the number of users/cooks who managed to flush their stuff was ridiculously small, the number who then got off was a fraction, and the one’s who went on to commit some offense greater than getting busted for using/cooking is a ridiculously insignificant amount of policework.

      Like they said about whitey bulger above; anybody cooking trafficking in their home has got to be handling it in the street at some point.

  22. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    Fuck you bitch. There’s no such thing as a “cummunity’s right,” only individual rights. Fuck you up the ass with a rusty chainsaw.

  23. “no knock” warrants only in cases where the police can show “probable cause that if an officer were to knock and announce identity and purpose before entry, such act of knocking and announcing would likely pose a significant and imminent danger to human life or imminent danger of evidence being destroyed.”

    So the raid on Bou’s house was perfectly reasonable under this standard. It was a reported by a CI that a small amount of drugs were purchased there. A small amount of drugs would easily be flushed down the toilet in a knock-warrant.

    Drug dealers are notoriously dangerous people, therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that there was imminent danger to human life had a knock-warrant been served.

    1. This is exactly what I keep saying–we have to end the war on drugs!

  24. For every SWAT team acting under a no-knock warrant, there is a dipshit judge who signed the warrant.

    The cops deserve the opprobrium they get when their murderous incompetence causes tragedy.

    We shouldn’t be surprised that cops want to dress up in their military gear, bash doors, and shoot bad guys. That’s why judges are supposed to be the mature adults in the system.

    Strangely, the judge who signed off on the warrant is seldom mentioned, even though the judge is the person most responsible for every one of these outrageous tragedies.

    The cops are beyond shame. Shaming judges for their culpability in killing innocents might just work.

    1. You’d think the judge would have a list of questions to ask before he signs the thing, such as…
      Have you done any reconnaissance?
      If so, describe the place to be searched.
      If so, describe the immediate vicinity of the place to be searched.
      Do any children live there?
      How far away is the nearest neighbor?
      Do the neighbors have children?
      Are there any dogs at the suspect’s house?
      Are there any dogs in the immediate area
      ?
      Any stores of explosives or large amounts of fuel in the vicinity?
      What material is the house built with (ex. concrete, wood, wattle and daub, etc…?)
      I’m sure there could be many more about information, background of the snitch, guns, etc…

  25. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.” What total BS! I am surprised you did not call this alleged expert, Carrie Mills, out on her silly comment, Jacob.

    First of all, this is not about privacy. The nation is not upset because the police violated Bou Bou’s privacy. The nation is upset that they threw a dangerous explosive device into a sleeping baby’s crib. This is not about privacy; it is about public safety.

    Regarding the public’s right to live in a crime-free environment, I am aware of no such right and do not think it is a reasonable expectation. What is however reasonable is that the police do not contribute to lawlessness themselves. No knock warrants do nothing but sew terror and should be banned.

    1. This is not about privacy; it is about public safety.

      Honestly…it’s a public health issue. It would be a grand thing to draw the public health brigade away from harmless things like vaping and into issue like the police killing children in their home.

  26. How about we do away with No Knock Warrants entirely, Prosecute the Police Officers who nearly murdered a toddler, and/or at the very least hold them personally liable for the damages (Medical, physiological, ext).

    and finally do away with the ridiculous concept of “illegal substances” which shouldn’t exist in a society that calls itself “free”.

    But I dream…

  27. According to a 2003 Supreme Court decision, the relevant question is not how long it takes to answer the door but how long it takes to flush the drugs. In that case, the Court said 15 to 20 seconds was plenty of time.

    I had to check whether this ridiculous reasoning was actually made. It was. I cannot decide whether USSC justices are retarded, or if they just think that everybody else is.

    If the concern is that suspect will “flush the drugs”, why not just turn off the water before executing the warrant?

    Sure, there’s one flush’s worth of water in the toilet’s reservoir, but there’s also a trap in the sewer line that would retain the evidence. The pigs could lard on evidence tampering charges to the basic drug charges if the drugs were flushed and recovered from the plumbing.

    The fact is that the pigs like to dress up in their military garb, arm-up with neat weaponry, smash in the doors and intimidate people. Shock and awe with overwhelming force. Sometimes they even get lucky and get to kill something.

    1. If the concern is that suspect will “flush the drugs”, why not just turn off the water before executing the warrant?

      Dang, beat me by 8 min.

    2. Of the nine whores in black on First Street, only one has ever served in a trial court. The rest are law professors and other hacks who live in an ivory tower and never felt the jackboots of the police on their necks.

      Their decision reflect this.

  28. “We have to kick your doors down in the middle of the night, because otherwise you might destroy evidence.”

    They call this the “war on drugs”? Seems quite clear to me that if your “enemy” has been flushed down the toilet, then you have won your war.

    Ipso Facto, then, this is a war on PEOPLE and not on DRUGS. Where’s our honesty in advertising here?

  29. Preserving evidence is reason to knock down the door.

    It is not reason to use a flash bang.

    1. The flash bang serves two purposes:

      1) occifer safety
      2) extra-judicial punishment.

  30. my classmate’s sister makes $76 every hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her check was $13884 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go to the website………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

    1. She has been out of a job for 10 months

      No…she had been out of a job. Now she is employed…on her laptop.

  31. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    Can’t have both – really!? Does this broad actually think before she speaks?

    1. Obviously not.

      The real question is whether she is capable of thinking. I see no evidence that she is.

  32. I just reread the Bill of Rights.

    That “right to live in a crime free community” ?

    I couldn’t find it anywhere.

    1. This.

      There is no right to live in a crime free community.

    2. It’s in the social contract. No, you can’t see the social contract, Because, social contract.

  33. Why are the parents on the hook for $1.6MM in medical expenses?
    They did not cause the injury.

    1. Because of the War On Drugs and FYTW.

    2. You’re new here. Fuck You, That’s Why. That’s the attitude of the people in government.

  34. Since when the fuck do we have a right to live in a crime free community. No one has that right.

  35. It sounds like a good idea until we remember that cops really enjoy frightening people in the middle of the night with loud things that go boom.

    1. So, we have the right, to live in a “crime free community,” and yet, the courts have ruled the police, have no responsibility to protect you.

      Interesting.

      1. Of course. You must understand, “The Law,” which includes case law and court rulings, is arbitrary, capricious, vague, contradictory, orders of magnitude too numerous and intentionally immoral and unjust.

  36. . “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    I would like her to point us to a city that conducts these raids that is also “crime free”. If I can’t have zero crime I might as well hold on to my human rights as some kind of sad consolation prize.

    Oh also

    Fuck you you freaking stupid cunt.

    1. This is why cops are getting 300 grains of Red Bull to the back of their heads.

  37. I think I need a refresher here…is it guilty before proven innocent? or innocent before proven innocent?

  38. “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”

    This reasoning falls apart whenever you realize that ANYTHING can be a crime. Taken to it’s fullest extent, you have no privacy, because all they need to do is criminalize more things to get you.

    “If we knock and announced, all evidence is going to be destroyed,”

    I see no problem with this. If the purpose is to prevent people from doing drugs, then you’ve succeeded by having them flush them. Maybe they do them itself, then it makes drugs more expensive, and if they were a seller, then it makes it less profitable, and could deter them from doing or selling them if it becomes too expensive or too unprofitable. Sounds to me like she bases success on capture, not deterrence. In other words, she wants to catch them, she doesn’t want them to stop.

  39. In defense of the cops, Bou Bou did make them fear for their lives

  40. Maybe they could make throwing an explosive device into a crib with a baby in it illegal.

  41. When baby-bombers and their lapdog shysters on the bench already ignore the fourth amendment, (not to mention any semblance of human decency) why would anyone expect a mere statute from a state legislature to slow them down?

    The only way to stop this shit is to disband them.

    -jcr

  42. Who tossed the grenade in the first place?

  43. This bill is not what it appears to be!!! No-knock warrants are already illegal in Georgia! This would legalize them!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.