Court Says Tossing A Flashbang Grenade Into A Room With A Toddler Is 'Unreasonable' Police Behavior

from the law-enforcement-bloodsport dept

The Evansville (IN) Police Department has seen a drug bust go up in a cloud of flashbang smoke. A search warrant for drugs and weapons, based on an informant's tip, was executed perfectly… if you're the sort of person who believes it takes a dozen heavily-armed officers, a Lenco Bearcat, and two flashbangs to grab a suspect no one felt like arresting when he was outside alone taking out his trash. (via FourthAmendment.com)

The state appeals court decision [PDF] hinges on the deployment of a flashbang grenade into a room containing a toddler. Fortunately, in this case, the toddler was only frightened, rather than severely burned. But it was this tossed flashbang that ultimately undoes the PD's case. The evidence is suppressed and the conviction reversed.

Scattered throughout the opinion are some amazing depictions of the PD's SWAT team at work -- and how those officers seem to believe the violence of their entries during warrant service are somehow just the new normal.

Things like the following paragraph. First: some background. In some cases, it's (theoretically) more difficult for law enforcement to obtain no-knock warrants. Facts need to be asserted that show that warning the occupants of a residence in any way would most likely result in the destruction of evidence and/or an armed response. Some judges are more willing than others to hand these out, but either way, the standard warrant boilerplate can't be used.

So, here's the difference between a "knock and announce" warrant and a no-knock warrant, as deployed by the Evansville PD.

The SWAT team rode in a Lenco Bearcat that followed a patrol vehicle to the residence. At least a dozen officers were involved. Upon arrival and prior to entry, three officers and a police vehicle approached the rear of the residence and at least nine officers, most armed with assault weapons, approached the front of the residence. At 10:30 a.m., the police knocked on the residence and one of the officers announced, “Police - Search Warrant - Police - Search Warrant,” and another officer announced over a loudspeaker “Search Warrant. 314 Illinois.” State’s Exhibit 1 at 3:55-4:00. One second later, the SWAT team knocked down the door with a battering ram.

ONE SECOND. Technically, still a knock-and-announce warrant, even though the residents had been given no chance to respond.

Within the next couple of seconds, a flashbang grenade was tossed into the front room, which contained a playpen and a baby's car seat. The toddler was in the playpen.

After the flash bang grenade was deployed, Detective Gray entered the residence and picked up a nine-month old baby crying on top of blankets in a playpen just inside and “very close to the door.” Id. at 332. The room also contained a baby’s car seat and a toddler’s activity center in the line of sight of the front door. One of the officers moved the car seat with his foot to proceed further into the residence.

The officer who tossed the flashbang said he could see more than what was captured by his helmet cam, but still admitted he could not see everything in the room into which he tossed the grenade. This grenade was thrown within two seconds of the officers' announcement that they had a warrant and roughly one second after the door was breached.

Officer Taylor testified that his perception of things involved a much wider view than what the camera could see. At a time stamp of 4:01 on the video, a member of the SWAT team rammed the door open several inches with a battering ram. From an angle to the right, Officer Taylor tossed the flash bang into the house at 4:02, and it detonated at 4:04. The video at 4:02 shows only a portion of the right rear of the couch and the wood floor on which it sat. The video reveals that about five minutes after the initial entry someone stated: “Make sure you get a picture . . . are you taking a picture of that?” State’s Exhibit 1 at 8:50-8:55. This appears to be a reference to a charred stain on the floor. The person then stated: “Because the baby was in this room, but I put it right there for a reason.” Id. at 8:55-9:00.

The lower court found these tactics unreasonable on the whole and granted suppression of the evidence obtained during the search. The state argued that suppression wasn't the proper remedy and anything resulting from the "unreasonable" use of a flashbang grenade in a toddler's room was something to be addressed in a civil lawsuit.

The appeals court disagrees, finding nothing justifiable about the SWAT team's violent entry into the home.

The video shows almost no time lapse between when the door was battered in and the tossing of the flash bang. The door was barely opened when the flash bang was immediately tossed into the room, and the angle at which Officer Taylor was standing to the door did not allow him an opportunity to see what was inside the room. Indeed, Officer Taylor acknowledged that he could not see portions of the room in which the flash bang was placed. Specifically, he testified that he could see “from the couch over to the left, I can’t see the corner, the left corner inside the room and I can’t see the hallway in front of it, that’s why the flash bang goes in the threshold.”

That's the flashbang, delivered two seconds after the police announced their presence. This is only part of it. The attempt to salvage the fruits of the search with a claim that the house potentially contained dangerous criminals also receives no judicial sympathy. The state makes assertions, but cannot back them up.

The State does not point us to any other evidence indicating the criminal history of Watkins or the other occupants of the house. The record contains no evidence that law enforcement could not have safely presented the person matching Watkins’s description with the search warrant during the time that he was outside the house and before he re-entered it.

While the police may have had a valid reason to enter and search the residence, the way it carried it out destroys anything it gained from serving the warrant.

Comparing the factors, we conclude that while there was a considerable degree of suspicion, the extent of law enforcement needs for a military-style assault was low and the degree of intrusion was unreasonably high. Under these specific circumstances and particularly in light of the use of a flash bang grenade in the same room as a nine-month old baby who was “very close” to where the flash bang was deployed, the State has not demonstrated that the police conduct was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

In most courts, uttering the words "drugs" and "guns" is normally enough to excuse a full-on, military-style assault on someone's residence. Here, though, the court finds the officers were aggressive and careless, which is an extremely dangerous combination. Things could have gone so much worse, especially for the toddler caught in the middle of it, making any police assertions about prior due diligence and "cautious" deployment of flashbang grenades almost laughable. A deployment that occurs one second after a door is breached isn't "cautious." It's obscenely negligent.

Filed Under: evansville, flashbang, no knock, reasonable, unreasonable

Judge Not Too Concerned That 68-Year-Old Woman's House Was Raided Because Someone Used Her Open WiFi To Post A Threat

from the an-IP-address-isn't-a-person dept

We've written before about faulty legal activities based on nothing stronger than an IP address. An IP address is not a person, but many entities have decided it's "close enough." Fortunately, the judicial system has (occasionally) stepped in to correct this assumption, usually in the context of copyright infringement lawsuits.

There are those in the law enforcement arena that know an IP address can't be used as an identifier. Careless statements get made about the "danger" of open WiFi connections, or it's suggested that accessing open networks should be illegal. This doesn't have much to do with keeping citizens safe, but it does have everything to do with easing law enforcement's investigative workload.

A lawsuit filed against the Evansville, Indiana police department is being allowed to move forward. [pdf link] The suit centers on the raid of a 68-year-old woman's house -- a raid predicated on an IP address related to an unprotected WiFi connection.

In June of 2012, threats against the police department were posted to Topix.com.

The following posts were discovered under the heading “EPD leak!!! All officers addresses are being passed around Evansville”:

“Me n my boys need them copys asap.need to pay a few a visit.”

“[Chief] Bolin lives behind parkside”

“Lol at all da cops commenting,f#+k the police.you mfs need to b taught a lesson,always harassing n violating mfs rights. 4th of July a cops house gonna got hit.dont care about your kids or btchs lives.I dnt even care about my own life.I got my reasons…times ticking.?”

“Cops be aware.Note:I am proud of my county,but I hate police of any kind..I have explosives.:) made in America.Evansville will feel my pain.guess who’s in the river.”

The police -- possibly tipped off by a news reporter (there were also unverified claims about the FBI contacting the EPD) -- began an investigation. The EPD subpoenaed Topix and the local cable provider to discover the user's information. The information traced back to 68-year-old Louise Milan's house. Information was verified by police wardriving, confirming that there was an open WiFi connection in the vicinity of Milan's residence.

Also discovered during the initial surveillance was known gang member Derrick Murray, who was two houses down sitting on his mother's porch.

A search warrant for the Milan residence was obtained, but notably did not include mention of either Derrick Murray or the unsecured wireless network. Instead, the warrant request asserted that the device from which the threats had been posted was actually in Milan's home.

The request also stated that “in order for a particular electronic device to utilize a particular IP address, . . . [it] requires the electronic device to be IN the residence of 616 E. Powell Avenue to access the internet provided . . . to the residence.”

Further investigation uncovered the criminal activities of Milan's stepson, Anthony Milan and HIS son, Anthony Milan, Jr. This was used by the EPD -- despite neither of these Milans having resided at Louise Milan's residence for over four years -- to tie Milan's home in with the online threats.

Using this information -- much of it faulty or circumstantial -- the EPD determined that the only "safe" way to approach the Milan residence was a SWAT raid. This plan moved ahead despite statements made indicating the EPD knew it was raiding the wrong person's house.

This decision was made, and ultimately carried out, despite the fact that Murray—and not Milan or her relatives—was identified during the “pre-raid briefing” as likely being “ultimately responsible” for the threats.

Helmet cam video of the raid shows how it went down. It was not a "no-knock" warrant, but the "knock" delivered by the SWAT team had very little to do with announcing its presence and everything to do with giving itself permission to smash through the front door and hurl flashbangs into the house.


Louise Milan and her 18-year-old granddaughter were cuffed and led from the house at gunpoint. Their computer was seized. Two days later, the police raided Derrick Murray's residence and recovered the device used to post the threats to Topix. Notably, Murray watched the raid of Milan's house go down from the comfort of his mother's porch.

Shortly thereafter, Milan filed suit against the police department and the city of Evansville, claiming her rights were violated by the SWAT team raid. [pdf link]

Judge William T. Lawrence addresses each of Milan's complaints and, unfortunately, dismisses most of them. For Milan's claim of unreasonable search and seizure, Lawrence states:

When Detective Brown made this statement, however, he knew that an unsecured Wi-Fi network in a residence may be accessed from outside the home. The Court is troubled by Detective Brown’s statement. Even so, the Court finds that his statement did not render the search warrant invalid. Even if Detective Brown had stated that Milan’s router could be accessed from outside the home, the warrant would still be supported by probable cause. The threats were made using Milan’s IP address; “though it was possible that the transmissions originated outside of the residence to which the IP address was assigned, it remained likely that the source of the transmissions was inside that residence.”

The dismissal of the false arrest claims follows in line with Judge Lawrence's determination that the search warrant was valid, despite Detective Brown's false assertions. If the search warrant was valid, the detainment was valid. That Milan was only detained for 20 minutes also factored into this decision.

But when it comes to Milan's accusation of unreasonable force, Judge Lawrence finds enough evidence to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Officers are allowed to use tactics and force they deem necessary to control a potentially dangerous situation. Law enforcement agencies are granted a lot of leeway by the courts when it comes to raids like these. But Judge Lawrence finds the EPD's assertion that the methods used were necessary because of the potential danger short on evidence of actual danger.

He points again to the the fact that the pre-raid briefing made it clear that Derrick Murray -- not anyone in the Milan residence -- was the most likely suspect. The fact that the posted threats declared July 4th (still two weeks away at the time of raid) to be the day the acts would be carried out also indicated that there was minimal danger in approaching the Milan residence.

Furthermore, the police chief invited a news crew to be on hand for the raid (as "repayment" for the threat tip) -- again suggesting the danger level was rather low. Coupled with the fact that the SWAT team broke through the glass door and threw (rather than carefully placed) distraction devices into the home within seconds of arrival brings Judge Lawrence to the following conclusion.

It is questionable whether the officers had sufficient time to look inside to ensure that no one would be injured by the devices. It is also undisputed that the officers were not carrying a fire extinguisher during the search. These facts lead the Court to conclude that there are questions of fact regarding whether the Defendants’ actions were unreasonable and excessive. Thus, summary judgment on this issue is not appropriate. The Court therefore DENIES summary judgment as to this claim.

Then Judge Lawrence goes further, declaring that the excesses of the EDP's use of force are enough to strip it of qualified immunity.

As detailed above, the decision to use the SWAT team and the distraction devices was made based solely on the nature of the threats and the small possibility that Milan, Sr., Milan, Jr., or Marc were responsible for the threats and would be found inside Milan’s home—that is it. The officers, however, did not see any of those men enter or leave Milan’s residence during their period of surveillance. Additionally, the officers suspected that Milan’s WAP was unsecured and that Murray was “ultimately responsible” for the threats long before they executed the search warrant at Milan’s home. Thus, there was little—if any—evidence that they would encounter a violent person. As discussed above, there was also no emergency situation (as the threat was for July 4), the officers did not carry a fire extinguisher, and the videos arguably indicate that the officers did not have sufficient time to look inside the residence for individuals who might be harmed before tossing (rather than placing) the distraction devices into Milan’s home. Lastly, there did not appear to be a dangerous point of entry. It was a clear day, and the front door (but not the storm door) was open when the SWAT team arrived.

For these same reasons, the Court also concludes that the EPD’s use of force “so clearly exceeded the bounds of reasonableness in the circumstances that it cannot be said to lie near the ‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force’ along which qualified immunity shields officers from liability for their snap judgments, if those judgments prove to be wrong upon further reflection.” Id. at 786. These were not snap judgments; they were methodical and deliberate decisions, which were based on limited facts and an incomplete investigation. A reasonable officer would know that the EPD’s actions were constitutionally excessive.

While Judge Lawrence's decision to overlook Detective Brown's portrayal of an open WiFi network as a positive indicator of a device's location is unfortunate, his refusal to grant summary judgement against claims of excessive force and his stripping of the principals' qualified immunity somewhat mitigates this. This entire debacle was based on a purposefully wrong assertion, but the Evansville PD has been spared having to answer directly for this misrepresentation.

Filed Under: evansville, indiana, open wifi, police, swat team, wifi

Police Send SWAT Team, Break Into Wrong House (With TV Film Crew) In Response To Internet Troll

from the wow dept

We've heard of police very frequently overreacting to things and sending in SWAT teams when they aren't necessary. We've also heard of them sending SWAT teams to the wrong place. But this latest story, found via Radley Balko (who tracks these things like no other) may be the most insane yet. It involves police sending a SWAT team and breaking into the wrong house (whose front door was open) in response to some internet trolls. I'm not kidding.

The issue was that on a Topix community forum for Evansville, Indiana, someone claimed that a list of police staff had been "leaked." Some trolls in the comments spoke out against the police -- and one certainly went too far, suggesting that a certain officer's house was going to be shot up. Rather than investigating the issue, the police got some info on where the comment came from (or, rather, where they thought the comment came from) and sent the SWAT team and a TV news crew to the home of Ira and Louise Milan -- whose front door was open. Now, they could have rang the doorbell and spoken to them. But, instead, they broke down the screen door, broke the front window, and tossed a flashbang into the living room.

And... all for naught. While they seized a bunch of computer equipment, it turns out that no one in the house had anything to do with anything. Something they could have ascertained by, you know, talking to people in the house. The police are defending their massive overreaction because.... the internet!!!!

“This is a little more difficult that a traditional crime scene, because we’re dealing with the Internet. They definitely weren’t expecting (a SWAT team at the door). The reason we did that is the threats were specific enough, and the potential for danger was there.

“This is a big deal to us,” Cullum said. “This may be just somebody who was online just talking stupid. What I would suggest to anybody who visits websites like that is that their comments can be taken literally.”

Yes, so because the police might overreact, you should watch what you say online. And also always be ready for a SWAT team to show up, in case a stranger you know nothing about says something bad online. After all, it's "the internet."

Filed Under: evansville, indiana, police, swat team, trolls