Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Scenes from a militarized America: Iowa family terrorized
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2402766" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>OK, now we get to hear from the other side:</p><p></p><p>I looked up Ankeny, IA. It appears the population has increased by 68% from 2000 to 2010 (census says to 45K residents). That type of explosive growth often leads to outdated and inadequate TTP's. The fact that the PD admitted to the media they don't have a written policy on warrant service, supports this hypothesis.</p><p></p><p>The Chief of Ankeny PD released a statement just a few hours ago on the raid:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...02050133/1001/" target="_blank">http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...02050133/1001/</a></p><p></p><p>This does provide some needed context. There WERE persons believed to be there with outstanding warrants, who were in fact arrested. The lawful permit holder who was armed, wasn't in fact acting lawfully if the allegations of felony possession of methamphetamine turn out to be true.</p><p></p><p>This tidbit clarifies the decision to use a tac-team in the warrant service:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A firearm and 8.5 grams of meth were seized in the search. You can argue about the legal aspects of drug possession till the cows come home. You can't argue about the risks involved in detaining someone on meth. The Chief's description of the situation has some holes in it. The warrant was allegedly for fraudulently acquired property. The items listed on the warrant were not recovered, yet the drugs and firearm they expected were. If so why wasn't the warrant filed for meth and possession of a firearm while committing a felony? I'd lay odds that the property was the means to a fishing expedition for the contraband. Sloppy police work.</p><p></p><p>Any defense attorney is going to file a motion to suppress based on the unreasonableness of the entry. Since the warrant was for large stolen property such as a 46" TV, the decision to breach prior to a reasonable time lapse from the announcement is going to be called into question. Sure the officers didn't want time for meth heads to flush drugs and set up an ambush, but that's not the basis under which the warrant was obtained. Again, sloppy police work.</p><p></p><p>The Chief states that the reason for disabling the cameras was "officer safety". If that were true then why wasn't the outside camera disabled PRIOR to the entry, rather than by the last man in the stack after 8 other officers are already inside? Yet again, sloppy police work.</p><p></p><p>Since the warrant was for property and the discovery was small amounts of contraband, that calls into question how the evidence discovery was documented. Any defense attorney worth their salt is going to be crawling all over the PD and their evidence. A proper warrant for what they actually expected to find and did indeed find would circumvent a lot of that. Still sloppy.</p><p></p><p>After hearing from the press, the family and now the PD, I'd give the agency a C- on the handling of this warrant service. They get a passing grade because no one was hurt, the dog didn't get shot and they were actually able to arrest some unsavory characters. Past that, it's uglier than homemade porn. </p><p></p><p>Comments?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2402766, member: 1132"] OK, now we get to hear from the other side: I looked up Ankeny, IA. It appears the population has increased by 68% from 2000 to 2010 (census says to 45K residents). That type of explosive growth often leads to outdated and inadequate TTP's. The fact that the PD admitted to the media they don't have a written policy on warrant service, supports this hypothesis. The Chief of Ankeny PD released a statement just a few hours ago on the raid: [url]http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...02050133/1001/[/url] This does provide some needed context. There WERE persons believed to be there with outstanding warrants, who were in fact arrested. The lawful permit holder who was armed, wasn't in fact acting lawfully if the allegations of felony possession of methamphetamine turn out to be true. This tidbit clarifies the decision to use a tac-team in the warrant service: A firearm and 8.5 grams of meth were seized in the search. You can argue about the legal aspects of drug possession till the cows come home. You can't argue about the risks involved in detaining someone on meth. The Chief's description of the situation has some holes in it. The warrant was allegedly for fraudulently acquired property. The items listed on the warrant were not recovered, yet the drugs and firearm they expected were. If so why wasn't the warrant filed for meth and possession of a firearm while committing a felony? I'd lay odds that the property was the means to a fishing expedition for the contraband. Sloppy police work. Any defense attorney is going to file a motion to suppress based on the unreasonableness of the entry. Since the warrant was for large stolen property such as a 46" TV, the decision to breach prior to a reasonable time lapse from the announcement is going to be called into question. Sure the officers didn't want time for meth heads to flush drugs and set up an ambush, but that's not the basis under which the warrant was obtained. Again, sloppy police work. The Chief states that the reason for disabling the cameras was "officer safety". If that were true then why wasn't the outside camera disabled PRIOR to the entry, rather than by the last man in the stack after 8 other officers are already inside? Yet again, sloppy police work. Since the warrant was for property and the discovery was small amounts of contraband, that calls into question how the evidence discovery was documented. Any defense attorney worth their salt is going to be crawling all over the PD and their evidence. A proper warrant for what they actually expected to find and did indeed find would circumvent a lot of that. Still sloppy. After hearing from the press, the family and now the PD, I'd give the agency a C- on the handling of this warrant service. They get a passing grade because no one was hurt, the dog didn't get shot and they were actually able to arrest some unsavory characters. Past that, it's uglier than homemade porn. Comments? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Scenes from a militarized America: Iowa family terrorized
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom