The Danger of "Confidential Informants" [Archive]

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 11:26 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_re_us/officers_shot

MINNEAPOLIS - Two officers who raided an innocent family's house on a bad tip were shot at and returned fire, but no one was injured, a police spokesman said.

Vang Khang said Monday that he grabbed his hunting gun to protect himself, his wife and his six children when they heard someone burst through the back door early Sunday. He fired three shots, hitting two members of the SWAT team, but they were unhurt because of their bulletproof vests and helmets.

Officers returned fire, but nobody in the house was injured. Police released Khang after taking his statement.

All six of the children, ages 3 to 15, were home at the time.

Lt. Amelia Huffman said the officers went to the house listed on the search warrant, but it turned out the source was wrong.

Seven police officers were put on paid administrative leave as the department investigates, standard procedure when officers are involved in shootings, Huffman said.

Huffman declined to say much about the underlying case but said it was generated by a unit that typically handles drug and gang crimes.

Khang, 34, and his wife, Yee Moua, told reporters Monday night that they thought intruders had broken into their home.

Moua said she was watching television on the main floor when she heard voices and then windows breaking. She ran upstairs to tell her husband.

Khang said he grabbed the shotgun from a closet and fired three shots out his bedroom door. When his sons yelled at him that the intruders were actually police, he put down his gun and put his hands in the air.

"The whole family is badly shaken and still trying to understand what happened," Moua said. She and Khang showed reporters five broken windows and 22 bullet holes.

WyomingOSUAlum

12-27-2007, 12:10 PM

Wow. Everybody was VERY lucky on that one.

The search warrant affidavit may have contained information obtained from a "confidential informant", but I missed that in the article you posted.

Lewis the Pike

12-27-2007, 01:19 PM

I think it shows the danger of the war on drugs, this police squad shot at an innocent family with 6 kids.

How safe is the war on drugs making you?

bleedorange

12-27-2007, 01:44 PM

How safe is the war on drugs making you?

Yeah, because this is an everyday occurence that happens ALL the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't come crashing through your door by the end of the week.:rolleyes:

Truth be known, your home is probably MUCH, MUCH more likely to be invaded by junkies looking to rip you off so they can finance their next day's fix.

THAT'S what should make you feel unsafe about the war on drugs.

WyomingOSUAlum

12-27-2007, 02:07 PM

I think it shows the danger of the war on drugs, this police squad shot at an innocent family with 6 kids.

How safe is the war on drugs making you?

I guess it depends on how you look at it, Lewis. Some people might read that article and come away with the idea that innocent police officers were shot at by an innocent homeowner.

Again, everybody was incredibly lucky in this case.

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 02:32 PM

Two officers who raided an innocent family's house on a bad tip

Lt. Amelia Huffman said the officers went to the house listed on the search warrant, but it turned out the source was wrong.

While I took a little bit of liberty in assuming that the "source" was a confidential it is an educated assumption that the search warrant says nothing of the actual identity of this "source"

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 02:36 PM

And it may not happen all the time but it does happen, and too frequently:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1107/474003.html

Deputies Raid Wrong Address, Kill Couple's Dog posted 11:24 pm Mon November 19, 2007 - Accokeek, Md. An Accokeek couple is demanding an apology after Prince George's County Sheriff's Deputies burst into their home and killed their dog - all because deputies went to the wrong address.

Pam and Frank Myers were tucked away in their home Friday night watching a movie when the warrant squad pounced.

"All of a sudden I hear, bang, bang, bang, 'Open the door, police, open the door,'" said Pam Myers.

For 45 minutes the Myers were kept prisoner in their own home.

"They wouldn't let me go to the bathroom which is like seven feet down the hall," said Frank Myers.

"it was terrifying. I can't sit on my couch at night any more. I'm looking over my shoulder the whole time," said Pam Myers.

The Myers say the deputies knew immediately they had raided the wrong home. They say it could have ended with an apology, until the couple heard two shots from the yard.

"And I said, 'You just shot my dog," said Pam Myers, through tears. "I just wanted to go out and hold her a bit. They wouldn't even let me go out."

The couple's five-year-old boxer Pearl was killed. The deputy says he feared for his life. They say the dog would bark but was no danger to the deputies.

ABC 7/NewsChannel 8's Brad Bell reports that a search of court records shows a warrant for a suspected drug dealer who lives two doors away at 14610 Livingston Road. The address is clearly displayed on that house.

"It's just not right that people have to worry about - police have their jobs to do, but the house is marked over there. All they had to do was go look," she said. "I want the sheriff to apologize to my family for killing their dog."

The Myers say they have received no apology. They say the deputies just left the scene, offering no explanation. Deputies didn't even acknowledge that they had killed the dog, according to the Myers.

The Sheriff's Department says it's investigating what went wrong.

Deputies did, incidently, arrest the man named in the warrant Monday morning on felony gun and drug charges.

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 02:47 PM

From about a year ago:

Niece Says Woman ‘Gunned Down Like Dog

ATLANTA — A 92-year-old is dead in what her family called a case of mistaken identity.

Was it the right address? Police said yes. But neighbors and relatives of the elderly woman shot to death by police said they believe there must have been a mistake.

Police said the woman, identified by relatives as Kathryn Johnston, was shot to death after she wounded three plainclothes officers trying to serve a drug warrant at her house.

The woman’s niece, Sarah Dozier, said that she bought her elderly aunt a gun to protect herself and that her aunt had a permit for the gun. Relatives said they believe Johnston opened fire because she was frightened by the officers, who were not in uniform, barging into her home.

Her relatives said Johnston had lived in the house for about 17 years.

“They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there’s no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they’ve got the wrong house,” Dozier said. “I’m mad as hell.” Officials said they had the correct house and that the warrant they had was legal.

Dozier said there were never any drugs at the house. She said the woman probably “panicked” when police forced their way into the home. She accused police of shooting her aunt down “like a dog.” Dozier said she bought the house for her aunt and installed bars on the window to protect the elderly woman.

Atlanta Police Asst. Chief Alan Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday that an undercover officer made a drug purchase at Johnston’s address late Tuesday afternoon from a male suspect. Officers were able to obtain a search warrant after that.

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 02:57 PM

Fatal Drug Raid Similar to Earlier Case

May 4 01:54 PM US/Eastern

ATLANTA (AP) - Two narcotics officers involved in the fatal drug raid of a 92-year- old woman's home had raided another home two months earlier where an elderly woman brandished a toy gun at officers and no drugs were found, according to a police report and a lawyer.
Narcotics officers raised concerns with their boss about what could have happened at 80-year-old Frances Thompson's home during the Sept. 20 raid, and about the reliability of confidential informants, who told them he had bought cocaine there, according to a police report.

Thompson heard the officers breaking into her home and confronted them with a toy cap gun, which she dropped when ordered by an officer. Neither drugs nor the drug dealer they had been searching for were found.

"Everyone was shaken but it. They said, 'We need to take our time, to watch our CIs,'" or their confidential informants, said John Garland, attorney for J.R. Smith, an officer involved in both raids.

The officers who smashed Thompson's door on Sept. 20 were apologetic and stayed around while the door was being fixed, Thompson said.

"I thought I was just supposed to get over it," she told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

While in her case, the officers smashed the door because they heard no noise inside, they obtained a false no-knock warrant to raid Kathryn Johnston's home in November.

Lewis the Pike

12-27-2007, 03:10 PM

Sadly bob's cases don't matter because they usually happen to people that are non-white in non-white neighborhoods.

To me if you treat drugs the same way as you treat alcohol, there would be less profit and less abuse.

wickerbill

12-27-2007, 03:22 PM

This is why so many people have a problem with the police. A little bit of humility can go a long way.

The Myers say they have received no apology. They say the deputies just left the scene, offering no explanation. Deputies didn't even acknowledge that they had killed the dog, according to the Myers.

CowboyJD

12-27-2007, 03:44 PM

This is why so many people have a problem with the police. A little bit of humility can go a long way.

Frankly, at that point, the officers probably had no idea that an apology was in order. All they know is that the search didn't reveal any drugs, and there's been a shooting. Furthermore, there are liability concerns surrounding apologies that have to be considered. Finally, did Myers apologize for shooting at the police mistakenly before knowing who they were?

CowboyJD

12-27-2007, 03:47 PM

While I took a little bit of liberty in assuming that the "source" was a confidential it is an educated assumption that the search warrant says nothing of the actual identity of this "source"

Actually you don't know whether or not the search warrant says anything about the identity of the source. You only know that the article didn't cite an identity.

I assume your solution is no confidential informants allowed and only individuals willing to risk becoming the focus of a criminal need provide information to officers. Am I right in that assumption.

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 04:16 PM

Nope, thats not my solution. My solution is for the CI to actually be a "reliable informant" and for there to be additional evidence before a search warrant is issued. A known drug dealer telling a cop that drugs can be found there (usually because they have already been busted and are looking for leniency on their own cases) is not enough. Thats what leads to innocent people having their house raided. All it takes for a search warrant to get issued is an officer say that things are true-not even provide any proof. Just to say it. Doesn't matter if they are really true or not-they just have to be said-then BAM your door gets knocked down. Why isn't more proof required to be presented to a judge before he signs a warrant?

Further, these "paramilitary styled raids" in most cases are a result of overzealeous cops playing GI Joe. Thats what leads to people getting killed, including the cops themselves.

The law is clear on "no knock" raids-however its effectiveness has been gutted by two things-1) the Supreme Court holding that the evidence is no longer suppressible if they go in without knocking and 2) The fact that, at least in NW Oklahoma, the cast majority of search warrants with drugs involoved are no-knock even though SC case law explicitly says that should not be the case.

Mistakes happen-but shouldn't those mistakes be made in the name of protecting our homes from invasion (i.e. not raiding a house that might have drugs?).

wickerbill

12-27-2007, 04:32 PM

Frankly, at that point, the officers probably had no idea that an apology was in order. All they know is that the search didn't reveal any drugs, and there's been a shooting. Furthermore, there are liability concerns surrounding apologies that have to be considered. Finally, did Myers apologize for shooting at the police mistakenly before knowing who they were?

Where does it say that the Myers shot at the police? They were sitting in their house when the police came busting in because they couldn't read a street address correctly off of the warrant. That article says it happened on a Friday and the article was posted late on a Monday. That's plenty of time to apoligize for an obvious mistake. I fail to see how apologizing is going to make them more liable than they already are for their mistake, but I'm not a lawyer. It's definitely the right thing to do.

WyomingOSUAlum

12-27-2007, 07:34 PM

OK, Bob. Your original thought was "The Danger of Confidential Informants". You then posted a story which had nothing to do with confidential informants.

The next story you posted was about officers who went to the wrong address. Again, this has nothing to do with confidential informants.

Next, you posted a story about an undercover officer who purchased drugs. The cops had a warrant, went to the right house, and returned fire after being three of them were wounded. Again, nothing about confidential informants here.

The last story actually mentioned the words "confidential" and "informant". Congratulations on finally stumbling upon a story which could help you make your case.

Lame, Bob. Lame.

WyomingOSUAlum

12-27-2007, 07:36 PM

This is why so many people have a problem with the police. A little bit of humility can go a long way.

Quote:
The Myers say they have received no apology. They say the deputies just left the scene, offering no explanation. Deputies didn't even acknowledge that they had killed the dog, according to the Myers.

Or maybe it just gives people with a tendency towards stereotypical thought process an excuse.

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 07:56 PM

OK, Bob. Your original thought was "The Danger of Confidential Informants". You then posted a story which had nothing to do with confidential informants.

Actually the stories were in response to a previous post insinuating that breaking down doors mistakenly (for whatever reason) doesn't happen much

bigbadbob

12-27-2007, 07:57 PM

Oh, and thats right, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger...

Hmm...

La...wait for it....me!

WyomingOSUAlum

12-27-2007, 08:14 PM

Actually the stories were in response to a previous post insinuating that breaking down doors mistakenly (for whatever reason) doesn't happen much

OK. Sorry to have misinterpreted the intent of the stories you posted.

You posted three stories which are supposed to illustrate that doors are mistakenly broken down on occasion, yet only one of those stories actually illustrates that point.

Story #2: Wrong address, period. No excuses. Cops were wrong.

Story #3: Right address, period.

Story #4: Back to original "confidential informants" theme

Please stick with one message, messenger!

CowboyJD

12-28-2007, 06:53 AM

Where does it say that the Myers shot at the police? They were sitting in their house when the police came busting in because they couldn't read a street address correctly off of the warrant. That article says it happened on a Friday and the article was posted late on a Monday. That's plenty of time to apoligize for an obvious mistake. I fail to see how apologizing is going to make them more liable than they already are for their mistake, but I'm not a lawyer. It's definitely the right thing to do.

I was reading the first article and thought we were referring to the same one. My bad.

The point still remains, if the dog was a threat the officer was justified and dealing with it in the manner he did. The Myers said he was not threat, the officer says he was. That's a fact question for a jury. As you say you're not a lawyer. Apologizing is often twisted and portrayed as something (admission of full liability) other than what it was intended to be. An "I'm sorry I had to shoot your dog" isn't the same thing as "I'm legally liable for shooting your dog", but if it is said there is invariably an attempt to portray it as the same.

CowboyJD

12-28-2007, 07:04 AM

Actually the stories were in response to a previous post insinuating that breaking down doors mistakenly (for whatever reason) doesn't happen much

Your original post labeled something along the lines of "the danger of confidential informants". You've STILL not provided anything other than your assumption that one was involved in your first example.

None of your other stories back that original topic statement up.....I believe Orange's statement was in response to your position that the use of confidential informants are a danger and Pike's that the war on drug was more dangerous to the average citizen than the affect of the drug use itself.

Then you post several other stories unrelated particularly to either of those assertions.....except the one where the confidential informant got it right. This is just another anti-cop rant from you. That's not an ad hominem attack. That addresses directly the content of your statements.

wickerbill

12-28-2007, 09:54 AM

I was reading the first article and thought we were referring to the same one. My bad.

The point still remains, if the dog was a threat the officer was justified and dealing with it in the manner he did. The Myers said he was not threat, the officer says he was. That's a fact question for a jury. As you say you're not a lawyer. Apologizing is often twisted and portrayed as something (admission of full liability) other than what it was intended to be. An "I'm sorry I had to shoot your dog" isn't the same thing as "I'm legally liable for shooting your dog", but if it is said there is invariably an attempt to portray it as the same.

OK, so they don't apologize for shooting the dog if they deem that as justified, though the only reason that dog was a threat was because they busted into the wrong house. They could at least apologize for busting into their house. It doesn't take a week-long investigation to determine that the warrant had a different street address on it than the house they busted into to.

CowboyJD

12-28-2007, 03:39 PM

OK, so they don't apologize for shooting the dog if they deem that as justified, though the only reason that dog was a threat was because they busted into the wrong house. They could at least apologize for busting into their house. It doesn't take a week-long investigation to determine that the warrant had a different street address on it than the house they busted into to.

And then their attorney uses the exact same argument you just did at trial. "They already apologized for going to the wrong house, now make em pay out the nose."

In situations where litigation my result, I would (and have and do) counsel my clients to never apologize without first consulting with their counsel and having any "apology" drafted with substantial input and review and clearance by their attorney before it is issued.

bigbadbob

12-28-2007, 07:46 PM

legelegel

12-28-2007, 09:02 PM

It's hard for government officials and especially their bureaucrats to say they're sorry and accept blame. Everyone is looking for an escape goat at this point.

Someone will be slaughtered soon.

legelegel

12-28-2007, 09:16 PM

The news article reports:

Lt. Amelia Huffman said the officers went to the house listed on the search warrant, but it turned out the source was wrong.

Maybe the confidential source was right and the police wrote the address down wrong on the search warrant. They could be investigating who is responsible for the typo error.

CowboyJD

12-29-2007, 06:42 AM

Some medical malpractice defense attorneys tell their clients to admit their mistakes and apologize immediately. They say when the doctors do this, the chances of a malpractice suit go down significantly.

Further, IMO, in a clear case of negligence (wrong address) I feel that a jury is much more likely to make them pay out the nose if they don't apologize than if they did.

In a not so clear case of negligence, I agree with you.

I know a lot of medical malpractice defense attorneys.........a lot. I don't know one that tells their clients to apologize immediately without first consulting with their counsel and having any statement approved by them.

My actual experience....rather than simple opinion.....in the area of governmental agencies being sued indicates otherwise. If an agency is negligent, they should admit so at trial or in a statement vetted by an attorney. Doing it immediately and without counsel is a recipe for disaster.