Drug War Stories
Posted by Adam Graham in : PoliticsRuss has got a couple recent stories up on the ups and downs of the Drug War in Law Enforcement.
Russ lauds a recent US Supreme Court ruling that evidence couldn’t be used if police don’t have a warrant and one tennant agreed to a search and the other disagreed.
Russ agrees with the ruling because the police were led to a stash of heroine by the wife of a woman who was ticked off at her husband. (I wonder which episode of COPS this was on?)
As a matter of enforcement, it raises a lot of issues and head aches for police officers. Lets say that one owner refuses entry to police, but a month or two months later, the other owner lets them in. How’s the court going to hold in a case like that?
You add to that, that in marriage unless you’ve got a prenup, the property of parties in the marriage is really considered joint. I mean, isn’t the stash of heroine as much the wife’s property as the husbands? Or if not the stash itself, the property which the stash is located on? Again, its pretty clear to me the Supremes blew it.
He then has the story of a Mississippi man (Cory Maye) who killed a police officer in an errant raid where the police went to the wrong house. The man claims not to have understood it was a police officer and was nervous as he was staying in a seedy part of town.
There was 1 Gram of Marijauna found in the apartment. Maye was clearly not a drug dealer, but at worst was a casual user (but this could have been his live-in girlfriend as well.)
All told, there are cases for death row, but this one doesn’t add up. Truth be told, despite the conflict over whether police announced their presence, Maye clearly didn’t do this with Malice Aforethought. At worst, this should be Voluntary Manslaughter and Haley Barbour should do the right thing and commute this guy’s sentence to the Manslaughter Sentence which is 2-20 Years in the State Penitentary.
Russ seems to be more focused on the point about the drug war rather than the facts of the case:
I also don’t want your average marijuana user’s rights violated by macho trigger-happy cops with a cowboy mentality and the mistaken belief they’re winning the War On (Some Taxpaying American Citizens Using Non-Alcoholic, Non-Phamaceutical, Tobacco-Free) Drugs by busting in, guns drawn, scaring the hell out of peaceful, law-abiding people and their kids.
Wouldn’t disturb law abiding users of illegal drugs. Seriously, its not a drug war issue. Its a legal issue and those considering it, need to treat it as such.
![SaveForMike.com [Grassroots]](http://www.christianevents.co.uk/saveformiketicker.png "SaveForMike.com")
Comment by michael [Member]
The issue here is one of law enforcement and probable cause. Citizens have a right to protect themselves and if innocent they have the right to protect their life and property. It is beholden on the law enforcement agency to enter the correct home when they are doing their job. Law abiding citizens should not have to open their doors or meekly accept an intrusion until they learn that it is not a police officer or other law enforcement person entering their property.
Here is a real world example. Internal Revenue officers entered a man’s house through a window. The owner of the home was an elderly man who reacted by reaching for his firearm which he kept near his bed. He was shot dead. This might be a defensible act by the Revenue Officers except for one problem. THEY HAD THE WRONG HOUSE!
Had the elderly man gotten his weapon and fired in time to kill the intruders he should have been considered well within his rights? Some law enforcement agencies actually enter without knocking. Also, imagine someone announces in a loud voice “POLICE, OPEN UP !”
Would you simply open the door and assume it really is a cop? Rapists were pulling women over and raping them by flashing fake badges and using phony police lights. I tell my wife not to pull over and drive straight to a police station while dialing 911 on her cell phone.
My main home is protected by two very large German Shepherds who announce the arrival of anyone regardless of the hour. Powerful flood lights light up the exterior and provide me with a clear view of the grounds. The rear and sides of the home are fenced off while protected from vehicles by a barrier of wetlands and stone walls and uneven ground. They would have to go on foot around the back and through a bog and struggle between trees. At night that would be extremely dangerous and leave them vulnerable once the reached the back of my property. If they try to come through the front I could pick off dozens of them without breaking a sweat.
As for this:
I also don’t want your average marijuana user’s rights violated by macho trigger-happy cops with a cowboy mentality and the mistaken belief they’re winning the War On (Some Taxpaying American Citizens Using Non-Alcoholic, Non-Phamaceutical, Tobacco-Free) Drugs by busting in, guns drawn, scaring the hell out of peaceful, law-abiding people and their kids.
Russ
Was this guy a legal user of medical marijuana? Or was he actually guilty of criminal use of a controlled substance? In any debate I like to know the truth regarding the specifics.
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
Well, let’s clear a few things up first.
The first story on the SCOTUS decision involved a stash of cocaine, not heroine (unless you count the Wonder Woman comic book collection under his bed), and not even heroin for that matter.
You do bring up an interesting point about one owner refusing entry and another owner later allowing entry. However, I think the majority opinion (there’s much more to it than I posted) was clear about the issue being one owner’s refusal to entry superceding another owner’s permission only during the event in question. It is already clear that if one owner permits entry and no other owner refuses (or is not there to refuse), police are allowed entry.
So, I suppose, in this case the cops could have waited for the man to go to work, knocked on the door, asked the wife if they could come in, and if she assented, they could enter. I don’t think the man’s refusal to allow entry lasts in perpetuity. I think he’d have to stay at the house and refuse entry every time to keep the cops at bay.
The scary thing is reading the dissenting opinion. In Roberts’/Scalia’s/Thomas’ view, any one owner/resident could allow police in over the protest of any or all of the other owners/residents. I’ve lived in many situations where I’ve had four or five roommates. In such a situation, four of us could say “no, you can’t come in without a warrant”, but one roommate could say “sure, come on in”, which effectively gives one person the right to surrender the privacy rights of four others.
The right side of the court would thereby be granting to police broad powers of invasion of privacy unless all the residents formed an airtight coalition of refusal. Shouldn’t the Constitution be more protective of the individual’s right to privacy (well, unless, of course, she’s a woman who dares to have intercourse for pleasure…)? People have the absolute right to be secure in their houses etc against government intrusion, until they give it up; it’s not Government has the absolute right to enter people’s houses, until the people assert they can’t.
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
Now, regarding Cory Maye. First of all, you are technically correct that someone with one gram of ashen marijuana is not abiding by the law. So, too, is someone who has an opened pack of cigarettes and hasn’t ripped the tax stamp. As well as someone who parks their car more than 18″ from the curb.
Maybe I shouldn’t use the term “law-abiding”, then. But to me, that term means someone who is playing by the rules of common decency and not harming anyone else by his actions. Certainly Maye was no drug dealer, was a good father, was a person who didn’t lie, cheat, steal, or behave rudely or violently toward others.
No, he was not a legal user of medical marijuana (Mississippi has no such statute). But in Mississippi, the marijuana law for possession of less than 30 grams is the following:
30 g or less (first offense) misdemeanor (summons only, no arrest) jail time: none fine: $100 – $250.
So for a “crime” that merits no more than a $250 fine, police broke down the door, unannounced, in the middle of the night, in a bad neighborhood, and a terrified 20-year-old man defended his home and his baby daughter with a firearm, killing a police officer.
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
You are wrong to say this is merely a legal issue and not a Drug War issue. One of the motivating factors behind these no-knock midnight raids is the police trying to prevent someone from flushing the evidence. That’s not really a concern in, say, a counterfeiting case or embezzlement. Also, there is the inherent profit motive in drug cases, as the property can then be recovered by the police in civil asset forfeiture (under the assumption that the drug money is what bought the sports car, the house, and the bling bling, so the property is guilty of a crime). Furthermore, there is the underlying assumption (somewhat justified) that major drug traffickers are going to have a cache of weapons and start firing on whoever breaks down their door, since they also have to fear the rival gangs that would attack them for their stash. Wouldn’t you think it would be safer to approach such a dangerous suspect outside is home, when he’s arriving or going, than to bust down the door in the middle of the night?
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
I could fill fourteen screens with cases of people whose lives have been ended because of a police raid on a wrong address or overzealous drug war tactics on someone for whom they had no warrant. But three should do:
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
Rev. Accelyne Williams, 75 years old, Boston MA, March 1994
Accelyne was a retired Methodist Minister and substance abuse counselor. After an informant gave police a bad address, a SWAT raid was conducted on the minster’s home. The door was battered down, Williams was tackled to the floor and his hands tied behind his back. He died of a heart attack.
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
Ashley Villareal, 14 years old, San Antonio TX, Feb 2003
Ashley went outside at night with a family friend to move their freshly washed car under shelter. DEA agents, interested in her father, were staking out the house, and believing that her father was driving, shot and killed Ashley. The agents did not have a warrant for her father. Read http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2998.html The Murder of Ashley.
Comment by RadicalRuss [Member]
[Story of 8-year-old Alberto Sepulveda redacted because it's tripping your naughty word filter and I can't figure out why. Snipped the rest, too. Could you just tell me what words CAN'T be used so I don't have to break up my rants?)
Comment by michael [Member]
So the Maye case has little to do with the recent ruling .
As for this :
“Maybe I shouldn’t use the term “law-abiding”, then. But to me, that term means someone who is playing by the rules of common decency and not harming anyone else by his actions.”
Russ
You can’t have a meaningful discussion if you change the meaning of words and terms to suit you. The guy was not a law abiding citizen. In fact, I would bet he is not the boy scout he is being made out to be. Who wants to wager on whether that gun used to kill the cop was legally owned by the defendant? My guess is no.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
No wagering necessary. We’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Comment by michael [Member]
Ok. It has been proven . The gun used to kill the officer was stolen .
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
perhaps you should consider producing evidence to support your assertion rather than asking us to take your word for it?
Comment by michael [Member]
perhaps you should consider producing evidence to support your assertion rather than asking us to take your word for it?
Comment by Andrea Graham
Come now Andrea . We are not writting term papers here .
However, it was easy to prove.
“The gun Maye’s friend had given him was stolen – the serial number had been defaced. Regardless of the legality of the gun, Cory Maye claims that he did not know the invaders were police and that he was in fear for his life and that of his child when he pulled the trigger.”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5097
The gun Maye used to shoot Jones was stolen, though by all indications, it wasn’t stolen by Maye. Maye says he got the gun from a friend. Documents show that the gun was stolen in Natchez, 100 miles from Prentiss, at least a year prior to the raid on Maye’s home. The trial judge deemed the fact that the gun was stolen to be prejudicial, and withheld it from the jury.
http://www.theagitator.com/archives/026002.php
The only reason I find this story interesting is that it shows how gullible and dishonest people can be. Look at how his defenders promote him as a law abiding citizen. Then when his illegal drug use is pointed out that is equated with parking more than 18 inches from a curb.
“Maybe I shouldn’t use the term “law-abiding”, then. But to me, that term means someone who is playing by the rules of common decency and not harming anyone else by his actions. Certainly Maye was no drug dealer, was a good father, was a person who didn’t lie, cheat, steal, or behave rudely or violently toward others.”
Russ
When you look at Maye more closely he doesn’t seem to be such an honest and law abiding citizen. Perhaps you believe May’s story as to how he came upon the stolen firearm. He claims it was given to him by a friend. Perhaps he honestly didn’t think it was uncommon to file off the serial number on a hand gun. There are reasons criminals keep stolen handguns around. There are also reasons why they file off the serial numbers.
I just took a cursory look at the story and am certain more hole would appear if I gave it more attention. My first impressions have been proven to be correct. I trust that a child could see the holes in the facade May’s defenders are presenting. I’ll take the opinion of 12 jurors who have looked at all the evidence over a few bloggers who are trying to take a story and twist it to fit their own agenda .