The Cato Institute has published a paper by Agitator blogger Radley Balko on the increased use of paramilitary tactics by local polices forces, Overkill: The Rise of Paramiltary Police Raids in America. Here is the executive summary:
Americans have long maintained that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.
These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.
This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform.
There is an interactive map of botched paramilitary operations accompanying the study here. See also Balko's post on the study here.
UPDATE: Balko addresses early feedback to his study here.
These stupid no-knock raids create far more danger to the cops and to bystanders than standard raids ever could, all in the name of (1) safety and (2) preventing the destruction of evidence. (1) is a lie and (2) is not worth it. It's time for state legislatures to do something about no-knock raids.
Of course, these things don't happen in neighborhoods that legislators care about (ironically enough, that doesn't include the neighborhood around the statehouse here in Oklahoma) and they don't happen to people who can bring to bear any kind of political clout, so I don't expect anything to change.
All that will do, of course, is further the siege mentality that many people, particularly in poor neighborhoods, have toward the police. If the police, with impunity, can crash down your door at night without so much as an apology and you can't do anything in response without facing a potential capital crime, how the hell else ought you feel?
1. The officers clearly announced their presence before making entry.
2. Two of the officers had helmet-mounted video cameras (you could tell from the perspective of the footage used.)
Example:
But seriously, if the police are sincere about announcing themselves, and giving the occupant a reasonable opportunity to respond -- especially when the occupants are asleep in the middle of the night -- they could try using the telephone to make contact first.
Unfortunately, as the Cory Maye case brings to point, these tactics, more often than not, place the police in GREATER danger.
In any case, my reaction to the Balko report was similar to Bruce's; these contrast most unfavorably with the NSA programs. That's why I find it hard to take seriously the claims of Democrats about civil liberties. The War on Drugs has been a far greater threat for a far longer time than the War on Terror could ever hope to be.
Indeed, virtually all the issues with "no knock" warrants and such relate to the War on Drugs. Cops (and judges) automatically assume that anybody suspected of a drug-related offense is dangerous, and they further assume that drug evidence will be destroyed if they knock-and-announce. So they engage in overkill. Pun intended.
I don't want the government listening to my phone calls or even tracking who I call -- but I want to be tested for drugs even less. I want my door kicked in even less. I want my property seized because the government is suspicious even less.
And the liberal media, far from condemning this, is an eager participant in the War on Drugs. The New York Times has been stirring up meth hysteria left and right, with its current policy of running a continuing series -- based on no evidence whatsoever, mind you -- that meth is a significant factor in identity theft.
Nick