Dancing to the Supremes
by Michael Gaddy
by Michael Gaddy
If there is anyone alive in this country today that cherishes liberty and believes the U.S. Supreme Court has the faintest concept of why our Constitution was written and what it actually means, he/she must have been sequestered away in a cave for the past few decades.
For those who also believe the Supremes always rule in the favor of liberty and justice, I have two words for you: Dred Scott.
On June 15th, the black robed bandits, ruling from the lofty perch of infallibility, issued an edict that prohibits the exclusion of evidence gained from illegal searches by law enforcement entities. In doing so, they also brought the aura of near infallibility to those in law enforcement.
The very idea that the Supremes justify their insanity on the belief that "increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline" justifies no-knock dynamic entries is truly alarming. The law enforcement travesties known as Ruby Ridge and Waco, and the total ineptitude and chaos that was Columbine have obviously been forgotten.
The no-knock warrant is most often used in routine searches for illegal drugs. What should be of great concern, not only to the Supreme Court, but also to American citizens, is the increasing dependability on notoriously unreliable "confidential informants" by law enforcement agencies in obtaining such warrants.
This reliability, as a premise for the issuance of a search warrant, has led to a plethora of "wrong address" warrants over the past decade. The number of innocent "suspects" actually killed in this type of raid is, in itself, a crime of major concern. There are estimates that put the number of wrong-door warrants at over 200. These are only those that are reported, or those that led to injuries or death, of either the occupants of the home being invaded or the police who were conducting the raid.
Nothing in this realm could be considered fair and balanced. What are the chances of some "confidential informant" giving the police or the FBI the address of any of the Supreme Court Justices, or even your local mayor, and a follow-up raid actually taking place? You can "bet the farm" that you or I would not be afforded the same exclusion.
The standing rule should be: if law enforcement would not risk their careers by raiding the sacrosanct Chief of Police's home on the word of their informant, they damn well better not risk their life raiding mine.
Mark Curriden, writing for the National Law Journal, had this to say about law enforcement's use of confidential informants; "in spite of the large number of informants, and their central role as sources in search warrants, there is little or no oversight of the informant system. As a result, the nation's system of justice is in danger. Abuses by informants and law enforcement threaten the life and safety of innocent people as well as the integrity of the courts…"
People become informants for law enforcement for two primary reasons: they are either trying to work their way out of an arrest by providing information on others, or they are mercenaries, providing information to the police strictly for the money. In either case, they care nothing about honesty, integrity or the liberty of others. In both circumstances, because of their inherent lack of character, they would sell anyone down the river to extricate themselves from trouble or make a dollar. Couple this with unscrupulous members of law enforcement and rubber stamp judges and you have a recipe for disaster.
The Crime Doctor describes the escalating crime of home invasion: "Home robbers rarely work alone and rely on an overwhelming physical confrontation to gain initial control and instill fear in you. The greatest violence usually occurs during the initial sixty seconds of the confrontation, and home invaders often come prepared with handcuffs, rope, duct tape, and firearms. Some in-home robbers appear to enjoy the intimidation, domination, and violence and some even claim, "it's a rush." Obviously, the only difference between criminal home invaders and the police is the police use flex-cuffs instead of duct tape!
It will not be long before home invasion criminals will be dressing as Ninja police and yelling "police, police," as they burst into the homes they terrorize to give them the advantage of surprise. I'm sure the charge of impersonating a police officer will cause them no concern.
The increase in wrong door warrants, which will be the natural result of this new Supreme Court ruling will lead to the deaths of many more innocents and, I'm sure, more police. The Supreme Court will be acting as accomplices in the crimes their insanity visits on the people of this country.
June 27, 2006
Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com