Post by Origanalist on Oct 10, 2016 10:34:20 GMT -8
Hennepin County judge confronts police use of 'military style' tactics
Critics of police militarization hope the ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
By Brandon Stahl Star Tribune OCTOBER 8, 2016 — 8:19PM
Police in riot gear stand around an armored vehicle as smoke fills the streets Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo. The protests there sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
Five minutes before Michael Delgado’s alarm was set to go off last November, flash bang grenades shattered the windows to his north Minneapolis home. Eighteen Hennepin County officials dressed in riot gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles stormed inside searching for drugs. Another 10 to 14 stood guard outside as an armored truck equipped with a sniper focused on the house.
That search, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford ruled, was unconstitutional. She wrote that the “military style” tactics were a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She was “troubled,” she wrote, “that the types of militarized actions used in this case seem to be a matter of customary business practice” for Hennepin’s drug task force squad, known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU).
As Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies continue to arm themselves with more military weapons and tactics, critics of police militarization hope Bransford’s ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
Those teams escalate conflict and generally target minorities in poor neighborhoods, said Ben Feist, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“Police are supposed to be out there protecting their communities, rather than treating people like they’re enemies in a combat zone,” Feist said.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office declined to say whether the judge’s ruling, handed down in the summer, will affect the use of the SWAT team in the future.
Jim Franklin, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, said Bransford’s ruling was dangerous and limited the ability for police to protect themselves when going into potentially dangerous situations.
“My question to her is: Are you going to attend the dead cop’s funeral?” he said.
itemprop
CHARLIE RIEDEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Police in riot gear stand around an armored vehicle as smoke fills the streets Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo. The protests there sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
TEXT SIZE
102
EMAIL
PRINT
MORE
Five minutes before Michael Delgado’s alarm was set to go off last November, flash bang grenades shattered the windows to his north Minneapolis home. Eighteen Hennepin County officials dressed in riot gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles stormed inside searching for drugs. Another 10 to 14 stood guard outside as an armored truck equipped with a sniper focused on the house.
That search, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford ruled, was unconstitutional. She wrote that the “military style” tactics were a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She was “troubled,” she wrote, “that the types of militarized actions used in this case seem to be a matter of customary business practice” for Hennepin’s drug task force squad, known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU).
As Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies continue to arm themselves with more military weapons and tactics, critics of police militarization hope Bransford’s ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
Those teams escalate conflict and generally target minorities in poor neighborhoods, said Ben Feist, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“Police are supposed to be out there protecting their communities, rather than treating people like they’re enemies in a combat zone,” Feist said.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office declined to say whether the judge’s ruling, handed down in the summer, will affect the use of the SWAT team in the future.
Jim Franklin, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, said Bransford’s ruling was dangerous and limited the ability for police to protect themselves when going into potentially dangerous situations.
“My question to her is: Are you going to attend the dead cop’s funeral?” he said.
‘Interest of justice’
Protests in Ferguson, Mo., after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
Officers there were accompanied by mine-resistant vehicles, dressed in heavy body armor, carried assault rifles and grenade launchers for tear gas — which drew criticism from many detractors for escalating the situation. Many of those weapons were surplus equipment provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security.
Since 2005, the federal government has supplied Minnesota law enforcement agencies with nearly 2,700 semi-automatic rifles, 68 shotguns, 20 armored trucks and four helicopters, data reviewed by the Star Tribune shows.
The weapons and equipment were intended for overseas battlefields, but they are often used by police SWAT teams. And while those teams had been traditionally used during hostage situations and riots, a 2014 ACLU report found that 62 percent of SWAT deployments occur during drug searches.
And sometimes in those searches, officers entangle the wrong people, court records show.
That was the case for Donedria Alexander, a recovering addict who was with an ex-boyfriend visiting at a friend’s north Minneapolis home when they were snowed in on Feb. 3. That morning, Alexander awoke to flash bangs shattering the windows, sending glass shards through the room she was sleeping in. One of the glass pieces sliced her wrist. Believing someone was shooting at the home, she jumped into a closet, where her blood got on a baggie of cocaine.
Though she said she didn’t know the drugs were in the home and were not hers, she was charged with two counts of felony drug possession. For months those charges hung over her. Alexander had hoped to work with troubled youths in a hospital, but a background check turned up the charges. In August, a prosecutor dropped the case “in the interest of justice.”
“It was a big injustice,” Alexander said.
In another case, Hennepin County’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU) raided a north Minneapolis home last year searching for drugs and encountered family members who had just come from a funeral. According to court records, one woman would later testify that she saw officers dressed in military fatigues throw what she thought was a bomb into the home. She heard a boom and saw white smoke blowing in front of the house.
After knocking down a door with a battering ram, officers pointed assault rifles at three people inside the house and forced them to get onto their knees, including one who was pregnant. That woman testified she was ordered to crawl to a door.
continued.. www.startribune.com/judge-says-county-search-was-unconstitutional/396326211/
Critics of police militarization hope the ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
By Brandon Stahl Star Tribune OCTOBER 8, 2016 — 8:19PM
Police in riot gear stand around an armored vehicle as smoke fills the streets Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo. The protests there sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
Five minutes before Michael Delgado’s alarm was set to go off last November, flash bang grenades shattered the windows to his north Minneapolis home. Eighteen Hennepin County officials dressed in riot gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles stormed inside searching for drugs. Another 10 to 14 stood guard outside as an armored truck equipped with a sniper focused on the house.
That search, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford ruled, was unconstitutional. She wrote that the “military style” tactics were a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She was “troubled,” she wrote, “that the types of militarized actions used in this case seem to be a matter of customary business practice” for Hennepin’s drug task force squad, known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU).
As Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies continue to arm themselves with more military weapons and tactics, critics of police militarization hope Bransford’s ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
Those teams escalate conflict and generally target minorities in poor neighborhoods, said Ben Feist, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“Police are supposed to be out there protecting their communities, rather than treating people like they’re enemies in a combat zone,” Feist said.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office declined to say whether the judge’s ruling, handed down in the summer, will affect the use of the SWAT team in the future.
Jim Franklin, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, said Bransford’s ruling was dangerous and limited the ability for police to protect themselves when going into potentially dangerous situations.
“My question to her is: Are you going to attend the dead cop’s funeral?” he said.
itemprop
CHARLIE RIEDEL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Police in riot gear stand around an armored vehicle as smoke fills the streets Tuesday, Nov. 25, 2014, in Ferguson, Mo. The protests there sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
TEXT SIZE
102
MORE
Five minutes before Michael Delgado’s alarm was set to go off last November, flash bang grenades shattered the windows to his north Minneapolis home. Eighteen Hennepin County officials dressed in riot gear and carrying semi-automatic rifles stormed inside searching for drugs. Another 10 to 14 stood guard outside as an armored truck equipped with a sniper focused on the house.
That search, Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford ruled, was unconstitutional. She wrote that the “military style” tactics were a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She was “troubled,” she wrote, “that the types of militarized actions used in this case seem to be a matter of customary business practice” for Hennepin’s drug task force squad, known as the Emergency Services Unit (ESU).
As Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies continue to arm themselves with more military weapons and tactics, critics of police militarization hope Bransford’s ruling at least slows the use of SWAT teams when executing search warrants.
Those teams escalate conflict and generally target minorities in poor neighborhoods, said Ben Feist, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota.
“Police are supposed to be out there protecting their communities, rather than treating people like they’re enemies in a combat zone,” Feist said.
The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office declined to say whether the judge’s ruling, handed down in the summer, will affect the use of the SWAT team in the future.
Jim Franklin, the executive director of the Minnesota Sheriffs’ Association, said Bransford’s ruling was dangerous and limited the ability for police to protect themselves when going into potentially dangerous situations.
“My question to her is: Are you going to attend the dead cop’s funeral?” he said.
‘Interest of justice’
Protests in Ferguson, Mo., after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, sparked a national debate about police use of military equipment and tactics.
Officers there were accompanied by mine-resistant vehicles, dressed in heavy body armor, carried assault rifles and grenade launchers for tear gas — which drew criticism from many detractors for escalating the situation. Many of those weapons were surplus equipment provided by the federal Department of Homeland Security.
Since 2005, the federal government has supplied Minnesota law enforcement agencies with nearly 2,700 semi-automatic rifles, 68 shotguns, 20 armored trucks and four helicopters, data reviewed by the Star Tribune shows.
The weapons and equipment were intended for overseas battlefields, but they are often used by police SWAT teams. And while those teams had been traditionally used during hostage situations and riots, a 2014 ACLU report found that 62 percent of SWAT deployments occur during drug searches.
And sometimes in those searches, officers entangle the wrong people, court records show.
That was the case for Donedria Alexander, a recovering addict who was with an ex-boyfriend visiting at a friend’s north Minneapolis home when they were snowed in on Feb. 3. That morning, Alexander awoke to flash bangs shattering the windows, sending glass shards through the room she was sleeping in. One of the glass pieces sliced her wrist. Believing someone was shooting at the home, she jumped into a closet, where her blood got on a baggie of cocaine.
Though she said she didn’t know the drugs were in the home and were not hers, she was charged with two counts of felony drug possession. For months those charges hung over her. Alexander had hoped to work with troubled youths in a hospital, but a background check turned up the charges. In August, a prosecutor dropped the case “in the interest of justice.”
“It was a big injustice,” Alexander said.
In another case, Hennepin County’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU) raided a north Minneapolis home last year searching for drugs and encountered family members who had just come from a funeral. According to court records, one woman would later testify that she saw officers dressed in military fatigues throw what she thought was a bomb into the home. She heard a boom and saw white smoke blowing in front of the house.
After knocking down a door with a battering ram, officers pointed assault rifles at three people inside the house and forced them to get onto their knees, including one who was pregnant. That woman testified she was ordered to crawl to a door.
continued.. www.startribune.com/judge-says-county-search-was-unconstitutional/396326211/