On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:22:34 -0700, you wrote:
Wouldn't this requirement violate the probable cause requirement for seizures
of a person which been defined by a series of cases, beginning with Terry v. Ohio
, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)?
steve
You are quite idealistic. Neither the Constitution nor case law matters. Neither
constrains the
behavior of law enforcement.
http://www.aclu.org/news/2002/n022002c.html
ACLU of CO Sues Federal and State Law Enforcement
Agencies Over Illegal SWAT Raid on Family
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ednesday, February 20, 2002
DENVER--The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit today alleging
that federal
and state law enforcement agents violated the constitutional rights of a Pueblo family
when they
conducted an illegal SWAT-type raid on the family's home with no warrant or other
legal authority.
Once again, the war on drugs misses the target and instead scores a direct hit on the
Constitution, said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. These
government
agents had no search warrant, no arrest warrant, and no lawful authority whatsoever.
They carried out this armed home invasion in flagrant disregard of the Fourth
Amendment, which
forbids unreasonable searches and arrests without probable cause.
According to the ACLU lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of Dan and Rosa Unis and
their two
college-aged sons, on August 19, 2000, the family was peacefully enjoying the privacy
of their
home when black-masked, black-helmeted men brandishing automatic weapons and wearing
all-black
uniforms with no insignias suddenly burst into the house unannounced, kicked the
family's dog
across the floor and ordered the entire family to get on the fucking floor.
Don't forget to be patriotic.
