Previous post
Last December, police in Burleson County, Texas executed a “no-knock” search warrant on a man’s home for suspicion of marijuana. An informant had told police that 28-year-old Henry Magee was running a pot grow operation and was supplying it to people in the county. The informant had also mentioned that Magee owned several firearms, some of them which he thought were stolen. The warrant basically meant that the cops could barge into the house unannounced, and that’s what they did. The only problem was, Magee did have several firearms, and when the cops burst in, the homeowner shot and killed one of them, thinking they were intruders. Magee claims he was protecting his home and pregnant girlfriend. The cops say that he knowingly shot and killed an officer in an attempt to not get caught growing pot.
Interestingly enough, the grand jury refused to indict Magee.
What I find intriguing about this case is not that he did, in fact, have a marijuana grow operation (which really has its own debate, considering it’s fully legal in two states and a virtual non-issue in several more). It’s that all the firearms found in the house were legally owned. Magee had no stolen guns, he had legally owned guns. Regardless of what other activity he had going on in his home, when you strip the entire situation to bare bones, you have a homeowner who shot someone busting into his house, and he shot them with a legal weapon. Deputy Adam Sowers, who applied for the warrant, said he believed that knocking on the door and serving the search warrant normally would have been “dangerous, futile, or would inhibit the effective investigation.” Considering one of his men died, it turns out that not knocking was actually far more dangerous.
Even if you happen to think that Magee was a two-bit criminal who deserved to get raided and arrested for his drug operations, the case raises interesting questions about no-knock search warrants and the right of legal homeowners with legal guns. It also raises the question of whether the grand jury was responding to the exact charges at hand, or whether they were responding to the idea of a homeowner who appeared to be defending his home and loved ones from intrusion.
The District Attorney’s Office released the following statement:
“The events on December 19, 2013 are tragic. In my opinion, the Burleson County Sheriff’s Office did nothing illegal by securing and executing a “no knock” search warrant that day. I believe the evidence also shows that an announcement was made. However, there is not enough evidence that Mr. Magee knew that day that Peace Officers were entering his home. The events occurred in a matter of seconds amongst chaos. The self-defense laws in Texas are viewed in the mindset of the actor, not the victim, which allows for tragedies to occur when one party is acting lawfully, but it can be reasonably seen as a threat of deadly force by another. However, the Burleson County Sheriff’s Office would not have been there that day if Mr. Magee had not decided to live a lifestyle of doing and producing illegal drugs in his home. Therefore, we will fully prosecute the drug charges against him. This event should wake the community up that drug crimes are not victimless.”
Was the grand jury correct in their actions? Was he a homeowner well within his rights to defend his property? Or was he an evil drug dealer attempting to cover up his crimes?
Merle says: The way I see it is that no knock warrants should only be used against EXTREMELY dangerous individuals. With the increase in home invasions by criminals I expect more homeowners will react with gunfire when their doors are kicked in during the middle of the night.
Merle
While I understand your point, Merle, the problem is that the only people deciding on who’s “extremely dangerous” is the government. I’m not okay with that, since they’re actually the dangerous ones.
Not only was the Grand Jury correct, but they should have returned indictments (unsolicited) for voluntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment against the judge who issued the no-knock, the individual(s) who requested the no-knock, and the on-site supervisor of the no-knock.
We, as citizens, should treat ALL no-knocks not involving clear and present threat to citizen (not LEO) life and limb, i.e. kidnapping and hostage situations, as illegal. ANY and ALL fruits of the no-knock should be treated as tainted evidence, stemming from “unreasonable search and seizure.” WE should do this, because the courts sure as heck won’t. Jury nullification, it’s the equivalent of Irish Democracy in the justice system.
EVERY LEO all the way up in the chain of a no-knock “gone bad” where an innocent citizen is killed should be prosecuted for murder and/or conspiracy to commit murder. Too many citizens are getting killed because some fool(s) can’t even find the right house. Yes, this means that if it’s Federal LEO’s who kill Grannie, then the President is prosecuted.
Finally, every LEO out there should refuse to conduct no-knocks unless there’s a kidnap victim and/or hostage on the other side of the door.
Xavier says: I wrote a really long response this morning but deleted it. I’ll try a shorter version and hope it makes sense.
There are a couple of similar stories floating around now regarding no-knock forced entry for non-violent crimes or unsubstantiated allegations; I consider them training exercises for the police. (and perhaps for us, if we pay attention)
Combine the militarization of small police departments, municipalities badly in need of revenue, and a government that wants to advance its agenda at any cost; you’ll see that cities and towns that enforce federal regulations and “laws” decreed by the President can generate income through fines and the confiscation of (your) property. Own a scary gun? Burning wood? Drive an older car? You’re a potential revenue source.
Not all of the police are dishonest. Decent, honest officers will either quit or refuse to enforce illegal laws and be fired. Those left, by definition, are corrupt and dangerous. They’ll also be the ones with the heavy artillery provided by the feds. When they come for you, who will you look to for help? The DOJ?
When it happens, people will need already-defined groups they can count on. Unfortunately, those types of situations tend to tell you a little too late about who you can trust and who doesn’t have the stones to stand up.
Xavier says: We’re fortunate to live in a rural setting where we know our local police officers. It’s the city police that worry me – they’re forced into a more impersonal relationship with the public because of higher crime rates and a larger population.
I’m not certain the scenario I mentioned in my comment above was intentionally created by the feds, but I do know that if a situation is exploitable politicians and lawyers will quickly find a way to extract money from it.
On a related note: Doesn’t the fact that anti-gun groups aren’t saying a word about the militarization of the police and various three-letter agencies tell you something?
Like: they’re not really anti-gun, they’re anti-freedom?
There used to be a notion that the warrant should specify if entry was to be without warning. It used to be thought that the purpose of a knock was to permit a homeowner to avoid damage to his property. But cops like breaking doors and they tired of hearing toilets flush when they shouted, “Police. Search warrant,” when all they wanted to do is make a drug arrest. And it’s pretty much always drugs used to justify surprise entry into an occupied private home, isn’t it?
Now that the IRS has expanded duties in healthcare insurance enrollments, is now armed, and has now been politicalized, we are about due for a much more dramatic tax, no knock tax audit procedure.
Maybe?
7 Comments