"... the agency tried something it had never done before. It sought permission from a judge to search anyone and everyone who parked or set foot in the apartment complex parking lot.
More than a dozen officers and the city's SWAT team flooded the area. They had permission to detain and pat down anyone they saw in the area. During the two-hour raid, a dozen people were searched and, even though officers justified the wide search by telling a judge no "innocent persons" congregated in the abandoned lot, only four people were charged with drug crimes. An 80-year-old man was among those detained, then released, during the operation.
The story explains this is in a bad neighborhood, known for drugs and petty crime. Does this give cops the right to search a person for being in the area? No. I'm sorry, but this may make sense for a single event in context (though I still am against it) but is way too easy to abuse for it to pave the way for future warrants.
At least four people, including an 80-year-old man, were briefly detained and let go without a search. Five people were searched, as were two vehicles, and officers did not find drugs or evidence that they were involved in the narcotics trade.
Steiner and Arend also said those searched were not necessarily "innocents" even if they were not carrying drugs.
So people can be searched under a warrant so broad it doesn't even list what is being done, and when the cops don't find drugs the citizens still aren't necessarily innocent. I guess that "innocent until proven guilty" thing just got in the way, right boys?
No comments:
Post a Comment