10-17-03

A woman shot and killed a man who fell through her ceiling while she was getting dressed, and police said the intruder was a burglary suspect who was trying to evade arrest.

Police said they believe the shooting Tuesday was justified, and they will submit a report to the district attorney.

"I think anyone would agree you'd feel your life was in danger when a burglar falls through your ceiling when you're just getting out of the shower," police Lt. Tom Monahan said.

The intruder, a 31-year-old neighbor, had climbed into the crawl space to elude plainclothes police at his front door, police said.

Monahan said the woman bought the gun after her apartment was burglarized in April. Police suspect the man she shot committed that crime.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - A man was recovering in a Vancouver-area hospital on Tuesday after his apparent attempt to steal a roll of copper wire ended up giving him a 27,000-volt electrical shock.

 The man was found on Monday wandering in a Surrey, British Columbia, railroad yard with second degree burns but without his shoes, which police said had been blown off when he tried to disconnect the wire from a running generator.

 Investigators said the 41-year-old man, whose name was not released but was already "well known" to police, was expected to recover from his injuries and faced several criminal charges.

Used with Permission
Www.dumbcrooks.com
© 2003 Dumb Crooks

Halloween Costumes

Law enforcement officers received information that the defendant was about to manufacture methamphetamine in his home. A detective obtained a search warrant for the home, and set up surveillance on the defendant’s house for several hours.

The house had a few lights on; the doors and windows were closed; a “listening device” was mounted on the front door; there were no dogs in the yard and no fence; and the windows were covered with a “tarp.”

The detective later testified that the listening device and covering the windows were indicative of a clandestine drug lab. When the warrant was executed, the announcement of the presence of the officers “was made at the same time the door was breached and entry was made.”

There was no dispute that the officers executing the warrant failed to “knock and announce” their purpose prior to trying to gain entrance. Prior to the defendant’s trial for Manufacture of a Controlled Substance, he moved to suppress all the evidence found in the residence, based on the violation of the “knock and announce” requirement. The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed his conviction on that ground.

Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the reasonableness of a search “may depend in part on whether law enforcement officers announced their presence and authority prior to entering.”

While not every entry has to be preceded by an announcement, that procedure ordinarily is required in the absence of some necessity. In Richards v Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, the Supreme Court struck down a “blanket exception” to the “knock and announce” rule that Wisconsin had employed in all drug cases.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that felony drug investigation often may involve the threat of physical violence or the destruction of drug evidence, but that fact “cannot remove from the neutral scrutiny of a reviewing court the reasonableness of the police decision not to knock and announce in a particular case.”

When proof exists that, in a particular case, knocking and announcing would be dangerous or futile, or would allow the destruction of evidence, a no-knock entry may be reasonable. The level of proof is not high, but it is required of the State in any case in which a no-knock entry is challenged.

In this case, there was no odor emanating from the defendant’s house that would cause the officers to think methamphetamine was being manufactured when they entered. No safety risk was shown, based on what was known about the inhabitants of the residence at the time the warrant was executed.

One officer testified at the suppression hearing about the history of “these people” (referring to drug offenders) and the violence of “these people.” He stated his belief that generally weapons, security devices, and other threats are present at clandestine drug labs, but he could point to no particular evidence that any of this was true of the defendant.

The State’s testimony was cast in terms of generalities, describing the “nature of the beast” and what might be found during the execution of a warrant for a drug lab. Despite the defendant’s repeated attempts to get the testifying officer to say what specific dangers were present in this case, the testimony was “pure speculation.”

One detective testified that he recalled a conversation with the confidential informant about whether the defendant “may or may not” have had firearms in the house. There was no testimony, though, that established the existence of any firearms, or that the officers believed that a firearm was in the house.

The informant testified that he may have been told by the defendant that a firearm that was not operative was in the house, but “the mere presence of a handgun, functional or not, is insufficient, as an exigent circumstance exception to the knock and announce rule, where the State does not also prove the authorities possessed information” that the suspect was likely to become violent and use the weapon.

The State essentially sought a no-knock exception for clandestine methamphetamine labs, but failed to carry its burden to prove that entry into the defendant’s house justified a no-knock entry. The Supreme Court has rejected such a blanket exception.

Because the State failed to provide the specific proof of dangerousness necessary to avoid the knock and announce rule, the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress.

COMMENT: This case illustrates, not that it is difficult to justify a no-knock entry, but that courts have begun to look carefully at the justification the State offers. All of the testimony cited by the court in this opinion was very general and vague. At no point did anyone testify as to facts showing that this particular defendant presented a danger on this particular occasion. In the absence of this kind of evidence, the appellate court found the trial judge abused his discretion by ruling that the no-knock entry was legal. Ballard v. State, No. 09-01-397 (Tex. App. – Beaumont, 5-14-03).

FBI Warns of Scam

The FBI today is warning consumers of an e-mail scam which directs recipients to a web site that appears to be the official FBI public web address. It is instead a hoax site which is titled "Mass theft of debit cards." The site encourages users to surrender personal information pertaining to debit cards in order to ensure that "any fraud operations with your account…not be made." Again, this is not a product or solicitation by the FBI. Rather it is a serious violation of federal law and one that we are investigating vigorously.

The FBI has been aware of similar schemes in the past where solicitations for personal information has occurred and the perpetrators have falsely identified themselves as internet service provider representatives, businesses, or financial institutions. The FBI takes this matter seriously and strongly encourages the public to be very skeptical of any online requests for personal information including credit card and social security numbers.

Should anyone be directed to this website, or any other that appears authentic but solicits personal information, we encourage you to contact the nearest FBI Field Office or the Internet Fraud Complaint Center at http://www.ifccfbi.gov

Cyber Space

"Why bother with spellcheck?"

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

(The amazing thing is that many of you will be able to read this without much trouble!)

From the Chaplain

Money, Money, Money!

Money is an article that may be used as a universal provider of everything—except happiness.

A billboard advertisement for a savings and loan association in Dallas read: “We Lend Happiness at Eighteen Locations.”

Money will buy:

A bed, but not sleep.

Books, but not brains.

Food, but not an appetite.

A house, but not a home.

Medicine, but not health.

Amusement, but not happiness.

Finery, but not beauty.

A crucifix, but not a Savior.

Nowadays, people can be divided into three classes: the Haves, the Have-Nots and the Have-Not-Paid-for What-They Haves.