A Presumption of Guilt

Let's begin with a bit of a Constitutional refresher, shall we?

The Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment Four

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Clearly, the officers of the Oshkosh, Wisconsin Police Department need at the least, some remedial training regarding Fourth Amendment protections. And frankly, I think whichever ranking officer was responsible for the actions you're about to read about ought to be fired, immediately.

Doc Russia posted this link on his site, but was understandably too infuriated to provide much commentary. After you read the whole story, I suspect you'll understand why.

7-17-2004

OSHKOSH POLICE CONDUCT DOOR TO DOOR GUN CONFISCATIONS

Shooting of Oshkosh police officer results in knee jerk neighborhood gun grab

Oshkosh, Wis. -- Following the shooting of an Oshkosh police officer Saturday night, area residents were forced from their homes, their lawful firearms being confiscated by police.

The Oshkosh Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics Unit responded to the area, with a K-9 police dog in pursuit of the perpetrator who was reported to have fled on foot.

Citizens' guns were seized through searches of area homes. The police promised to return the firearms after forensic tests proved they were not involved in the crime. The injured officer's name was withheld, but media reports indicate his condition is not life-threatening.

(emphasis mine)

Now, I can understand the ardor of the cops on that scene. Being a former officer myself, I can attest that there is nothing which will boil a cop's blood faster than the shooting of a fellow officer. Boiling blood or not though, at some point basic professionalism has to prevail. In fact, that professionalism must come to the fore, immediately, if for no other reason than to avoid contaminating the subsequent prosecution of the goblins in question.

Now obviously, while in the process of "ballistically excluding" those unconstitutionally seized firearms, they're making and keeping records of each gun, it's serial number and who owns it. I'll wager a box of doughnuts too, that quite a few of those guns won't be returned to their rightful owners, for one bullshit reason or another.

And the very process of first seizing everyone's guns for the stated purpose of returning them only if they're excluded as a ballistic match to the weapon used in the original crime? That friends, is a flat-out presumption of guilt being assigned to the guns, and by extention to their owners.

I cannot even begin to unwind the multitudes of legal principles being violated here. Suffice to say though, that this is precisely the kinds of search and seizure which the Fourth Amendment prohibits.

But will the mainstream liberal media stand up in indignant outrage over these unconstitutional seizures? Don't hold your breath waiting.

After all, it was eeeevvvviiiillll gunsssssss being confinscated. Never mind the unlawful forced entries into the homes of citizens. Never mind the illegal seizures. Forget about the hell these people will undoubtedly have to go through to retrieve their own property.

The Oshkosh, Wisconsin Police Department needs to hang it's collective heads in deep, deep shame.

I think that had my local constables tried to pull a stunt like that in my home, you'd now be watching various teevee stories all reporting breathlessly about the bloodbath on that boat in Galveston, Texas. And I'd most likely be too dead to blog about it later.

But I won't give up my guns, or the freedoms which they protect, without first giving up my very life.

As the incomparable Sgt. Hook's tag-line reads: "THIS WE'LL DEFEND"

Exactly so.

Comments

[girl]

would evidence of that nature (seeing as how it was seized without a warrant) even be admissible in court?

[Yosemite Sam]

Here's a little more info: www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/stories/local_17030135.shtml

The money quote: "Police last week seized a number of firearms during consent searches of homes in the area, but need the bullet to match against them. Police also served a search warrant at the property they believe the shot originated from."

So, it is being reported that the people consented to have their homes searched and their firearms confiscated. I wonder if there was any duress?

[dgci]

What concerned me the most about the story was the report of the elderly lady who woke up to find police ALREADY INSIDE HER HOME, searching it.

In the absence of a warrant, that's called, quite simply, breaking and entering (or residential burglary if they left with any of her possessions). The offending police officers should be arrested and so charged.

It's interesting to note that burglary of an OCCUPIED premise is an "aggravating" factor that increases the potential sentence, in most jurisdictions.

[Kim du Toit]

In an unbelievably rare occurrence, I was too angry to blog about this.

[Rivrdog]

"frankly, I think whichever ranking officer was responsible for the actions you're about to read about ought to be fired, immediately."

So, Blogfader, you're giving the trained police officers who participated in this Constitutional Travesty the My Lai Defense ("I was just following the orders of my superior officer")?

don't be so generous. The officers are not robots, but thinking men and women who are supposed to be able to refuse an unlawful order, in fact, I'll bet a month's retirement pay that their Manual of Procedures, or General Orders says that they are REQUIRED to refuse such unlawful orders.

They should all be terminated for gross violations of their own department policy and Standing Orders.

Let their union spend it's $$$ trying to get them rehired.

[Guy S.]

Damn....is this a sneak preview of where the country is heading or what? If nothing is done to the offending officers and their superiors who instagated this. It sets a very scary precedent. And Wisconson has a bunch of wingnuts in their government already...Madison is the liberal Mecca of the midwest...right up there with Chicago.

[Jesse]

At least Kim, Jim and I don't have to worry too much about this happening in our neck of the woods...at least not yet.

Why in the name of all that is good and holy would anyone "consent" to have their home searched by the police?! I most certainly would not "consent" to them taking my firearms!

[Jim]

Well Rivrdog, typing in the heat of anger one tends to forget some of the finer details. That said, yes, I'd want those officers investigated, badge-by-badge and action-by-action.

But for the brass who gave the order in the first place? No investigation needed. Hasta la bye bye, baybee!

And after firing that imperious sonofabitch, then levy the appropriate criminal and civil prosecution(s) upon him and/or them.

Hell, if the feebies (that's the FBI to the uninitiated) can press Civil Rights prosecutions on officers such as the did in the Rodney King case, then let 'em do the same in the protection of some law abiding citizens!

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Russell]

Wait, if there is a rumor that Ashcroft and his evil minions are getting people's library checkout list, the left flies into a frothy lather.

But this? This gets ignored?!

Why is the police department not shut down pending further investigation? Why are some of these guys still wearing badges? Do they really think a 'sorry' is an acceptable response to this?

Sigh.

Thanks for ruining my day.

[sf]

While there's certainly no shortage of both a) ignorance of the Constitution, and b) stupidity by government at all levels, let's not jump to conclusions quite yet.

Specifically, I can't imagine the Oshkosh police are unaware that evidence seized in unconstitutional searches is excluded by the courts *every time*. So if the cops knew this, what's up?

I would guess that the home entries were either done with permission of the occupants (perfectly legal); or, where occupants were asleep, the officers entered because they were 'in hot pursuit' of the *shooter* and had some reason to believe he was the only occupant.

As to the gun 'confiscations', I would *hope* that the cops said something like, "Do you mind if we test this?" Most innocent homeowners would probably say, Help yourself. This obviously wouldn't literally be a confiscation.

I realize there's a lot of animosity to guns and gun owners, but as someone once said, "Never ascribe to malice and skulduggery that which can be explained by sloppy journalism."

[Jack]

Actually, it's "Never ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity".

There is a fine line between police officers "requesting permission" and true confiscation. Police officers routinely use the authority that goes with their position to obtain evidence. There is an intimidation that goes along with that authority that can result in apparent abuses in some cases. I have had a difficult time finding more information regarding this incident, but on the face of it, there does appear to have been more than the usual amount of poor judgement on more than one person's part.

[Ironbear]

What in the hell? Just saw this... I can understand Kim being too angry to write about it.