This type of thing should be obvious and is going to be inevitable, but it is the type of thing many people don't think about or realize exists. A man is suing after police raided his apartment and later determined they had the wrong address. Juan Alberto Castaneda Miranda said agents burst into his apartment in 2018. He showed the officers his wallet to prove they had the wrong guy. The police didn't listen. Instead, they reportedly handcuffed Castaneda Miranda and his girlfriend and told him to confess about the drug cartels, the lawsuit said. Castaneda Miranda, a Comcast technician, says he had no idea what they were talking about. A federal judge authorized the search warrant four days prior, to locate controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and records of drug sales. Police tore up the apartment looking for evidence. They came up empty. The officers then acknowledged they were in the wrong apartment, the complaint claims. They gave him claim forms to get reimbursement for the damages to his apartment and car. He said all of his belongings, including his vehicle, were destroyed. He said he had to move. This happened in Lynnwood, Washington, and a pair of lawsuits filed in Snohomish County Superior Court and in U.S. District Court in Seattle, and was reported by the the Everett Herald. Lynnwood Man Sues Officers, Claims They Raided Wrong Address | Washington News | US News, Associated Press, October 4, 2021 Yes, the man is suing now, so some of you will just brush this off in your minds and say "justice will be done". But here's a disturbing thought to think about: What if in some cases unscrupulous officers plant some evidence in the apartment, to cover up the bungled raid? It could be something very small that could fit into a pocket, for example - a little baggy with some residue of illegal drugs in it. Maybe a bottle of prescription pain pills. The other officers on the scene might not be aware of it. This could be done by one rogue officer, as they're all off in separate corners of the home going through everything. The person who lives there would get arrested. Yes, the case might eventually get dropped due to lack of adequate evidence for a search warrant, but then the man would be unable to sue in court over the incident. Such a dirty trick could be used to cover up a bungled raid and make the police team look less bad. The police might stand to benefit, meanwhile with possible consequences for the innocent suspect. (If they can't afford bail, they might be in prison for a year until the case finally gets sorted out. That's assuming they don't just take a plea bargain and plead guilty to be let out of jail before then. And let's not forget that in a few cases judges may deny bail, for reasons that are not the fault of the suspect. This is another long complicated subject) If police raid the wrong place, they are going to be more likely to go to any lengths to find something illegal so they can arrest the suspect, so the incident will be less embarrassing to the police. Even arrest the suspect over something that someone would probably not normally be arrested for. When the suspect is in jail facing criminal charges, it makes it much more difficult to sue. In some corrupt areas individuals might even be somewhat fearful of suing, for fear the law enforcement may find some way to retaliate against them.
In our world where police are under the microscope, they need to admit their wrong doing and there should be full compensation. Without question. Either the victim is a litigious sort, or the police did not compensate appropriately.
You mean another victim of your Media and Congress. In this one instance, your Media and Congress really did tie the hands of police behind their backs. In the beginning, police were focused on quality investigations and arrests, because they were targeting and investigating drug distribution networks, meaning mid-to-high level dealers. Your Media screwed that up by coercing the focus from quality to quantity. Police: We seized $2.8 Million in cocaine and made 3 arrests. Media: 3 arrests? Police: Yes, and we seized $2.8 Million in cocaine. Media: But you only made 3 arrests! Police: Yes, but we took $2.8 Million in cocaine off the streets Media: But you only made 3 arrests. How are you gonna win the war by arresting a handful of people? Don't believe it? Go watch the videos yourself. Any number of universities and other sources have on-line archives of local TV newscasts from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. That comes to the attention of your so-called national network Media who start beating Congress-critters over the head with it. You're shockingly ill-informed if you don't understand that 90% of the city police departments in the US receive federal funding, initially through the Justice Department, but now through them and Homeland Security. A city might have a police budget of $10 Million. They get $1 Million from the government. With lots of strings attached. That money has to be used on police. What your typical city does is defund the police. They reduce the budget from $10 Million to $9 Million then add in the $1 Million from the government to restore funding to the $10 Million level and then use the $1 Million they cut for pie-in-sky big money give-away fests, like handing out needles to junkies and crap like that. Except Congress changes the laws so that to get that $1 Million, you have to make more arrests this year than you did last year, or you lose that $1 Million because you're not, um, you know, "showing progress" on the "War on Drugs." To lose that government funding would through cities in chaos as they try to come up with the lost money out of their budgets to fund their police. To be sure, the police don't want to lose that money, either, because it's not in their best interest since the resulting chaos might mean police lay-offs and cuts to their perks. However, making quality arrests is problematic because over time, the number of arrests will dwindle as you take down large drug distribution networks. So, police switch to "buy-bust" tactics to nail easy targets like street dealers and users to keep their numbers pumped up and they don't lose their government funding. Whose fault is it really? Look in the mirror. How many times have you asked your Congress-critters to amend the laws to remove the strings to untie the hands of police so that they can focus on quality arrests and win the war on drugs? Exactly ZERO times. But, I forgive you because you know not what you do because your Media -- whose primary function is to keep you informed -- didn't tell you the gritty details of all the string attached to police funding and how they coerced a shift from quality arrests to quantity of arrests. Yeah, the Media has an agenda which is in no one's best interest.
It's only inevitable when you have incompetent morons and you have incompetent morons because you have police unions. Y'all need to decide whether police should be under civilian control through your local elected officials who answer to you, or to unions, whom you do not elect, and who never have to answer to you for anything. When you make the right decision, your duty is clear. You need to elect a mayors and city councils who will eliminate the police unions. And, you need to do that even if it means voting for commies and socialists and Independents and Green Party pukes and the Nutter Party (and even Libertarians just as soon as they manage to figure out there's other elected positions in the US aside from the presidency), if Democrats or Republicans won't do it. I get that some people like to bottle the farts of union leaders so they can smell them later, but then you can limit the power of the union to bargaining for wages and benefits only, and nothing more. There is no good logical reason, and it is contrary to the concepts of both democracy and representative democracy, to have police unions control the hiring, firing, disciplinary and promotion processes of your local police. Those are the things that should be solely under your control, through your locally elected officials who answer to you. If your mayors or council members balk, you can introduce them to something called a "contract." Major league sports uses them, why not cities? It's perfectly within the letter of the law.
example of police reprisal against a reporter here: police seek retribution on reporter who refused to reveal source of police leak This happened in San Francisco. If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere.
