SWat arrests Vegas man after refusing them use of his home

nooshinjohn

Wow... just effin wow.:eek:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/henderson-family-sues-police-breaking-their-homes

Members of the Mitchell family said they had done nothing wrong when Henderson police broke into their two homes without warrants, according to a federal lawsuit.

The family on July 10, 2011, had refused to let SWAT officers use their homes to perform surveillance in what authorities suspected was an ongoing domestic violence incident involving a neighbor.

Officers then manhandled Linda Mitchell and arrested her husband, Michael Mitchell, and her son, Anthony Mitchell, charging them with obstructing a police officer, family members allege.

Police also shot Anthony Mitchell and the family’s dog, Sam, with a “pepperball gun,” similar to a paint ball gun that holds pepper spray.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this week in U.S. District Court, said the Mitchells’ constitutional rights were violated, including their Third Amendment right that prohibits soldiers from quartering in a home without the homeowner’s consent.

Police had gone to the 300 block of Evening Side Avenue, near Horizon Ridge Parkway and the Las Vegas Beltway, for an alleged domestic violence incident at Phillip White Jr.’s home, according to a media report at the time and the lawsuit.

White was believed to have barricaded himself and a child inside his home at 363 Evening Side.

SWAT officers closed all entrances and exits to the neighborhood. The standoff lasted hours.

Police began to call people in their homes.

About 10:45 a.m. they contacted Anthony Mitchell, who lived two homes away from White, at 367 Evening Side.

According to the lawsuit, Henderson police officer Christopher Worley told him police needed to “occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house.”

Anthony Mitchell said that he didn’t want to be involved and he didn’t want police in his home.

Officers began banging on his door and demanded they be let inside. He called his mother who lived across the street at 362 Evening Side.

Police soon broke down the front door, aimed guns and cursed at Anthony Mitchell.

Terrified and confused, he dropped to the floor, covered his face with his hands and made no movement, according to the lawsuit.

Officer David Cawthorn then fired multiple shots with the pepperball gun, striking Anthony Mitchell three times as he “lay defenseless on the floor of his living room,” the lawsuit said . He was then handcuffed and taken to jail.

The lawsuit said police also shot his “cowering dog” with a pepperball gun. The dog fled out an open door and was left trapped outside without water, food or shelter for most of that July day.

At the same time, police were also contacting Michael and Linda Mitchell, who lived directly across the street from the subject of the alleged domestic violence incident.

Police asked Michael Mitchell to come to their command post to see whether he could help talk Phillip White into surrendering.

Michael Mitchell was told White wasn’t taking any calls and was told he could not return to his home.

After twice attempting to leave the neighborhood, he too was arrested.

About 1:45 p.m. police banged on Linda Mitchell’s door. She told officers they could not enter without a warrant. They did so anyway, according to the lawsuit.

One officer grabbed her arm and forced the physically frail woman with difficulty breathing from her home, the lawsuit said.

Minus having warrants, police occupied both homes and rummaged through the Mitchells’ belongings, including opening cabinets and using a water dispenser, according to the lawsuit.

Anthony Mitchell and his father were jailed for about nine hours at the Henderson Detention Center before they were bailed out.

Both cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case was forever closed, according to Henderson Municipal Court records.

The federal lawsuit names five Henderson police officers, the city of Henderson and its then-Police Chief Jutta Chambers, as well as unnamed North Las Vegas police officers and their chief, who assisted in the case.

Henderson police spokesman Keith Paul said the department does not comment on pending lawsuits.

The Mitchells’ lawyer, Frank Cofer, said police had plenty of time to get a warrant as the standoff lasted hours but did not.

Cofer declined to discuss specific details of the civil complaint, but noted the unusual legal tactic of citing a violation of his clients’ Third Amendment rights considering that Henderson police are not a military force.

The lawyer said that police forces throughout the country, including local law enforcement, are employing military weapons and tactics and the facts of the Mitchells’ case shows the spirit of the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was violated.

“Ultimately, we want the case to go to a jury. That’s the type of vindication the Mitchell family wants,” Cofer said.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages but does not state a specific amount of money.

“We definitely intend to see that the Mitchell family gets justice for the pain and humiliation they suffered,” Cofer said.

Meanwhile White, the man at the center of the reported domestic violence incident that sparked the standoff with police, was arrested on one count each of domestic battery-first offense and coercion.

Attempts to contact White on Friday were unsuccessful.

However, Henderson Municipal Court records show that on Nov. 1, 2011, both charges against White were dismissed with prejudice and that the case was closed.

oldmodman

I don't know if there are really more incidents involving police misconduct, or if it's just that now we hear about every one.

Something needs to be done to curtail their power. But I can't think of anything that wouldn't result in the innocent homeowner being killed. Everyone I know could defend our homes with lethal force. While that would work just fine against a pack of hungry wild dogs, or, of course, Zombies, neither of those threats would shoot back.

I was having a conversation with an attorney a while back and he suggested that there be a first shot or one bite rule.

Until an officer had actually been bitten (in the case of a "threatening dog") or there must actually be an officer down with a gunshot wound before their firearms can leave the holster. He suggested that either of these conditions would prove that any use of force on the side of the police would thereafter be justified.

But no more "I thought he had a gun, too bad it was just a flashlight or cell phone"

He also thought it would be fun to make the police give up their black ninja costumes and force the uniform of the day to be shorts and Hawaiian Shirts. With funny looking shoes.

I do have a very peculiar attorney.

maximillian

There are several comments about how Mr. Mitchell was video tapping the SWAT team and relaying their position to the perp 2 doors down. If that is the case, then he is aiding and abetting. Still, still seems weird that the police wouldn't just arrest and charge with that crime instead of refusing the use of his home. So the story doesn't seem to tell the whole picture.

exalted512

oldmodman wrote: »

I was having a conversation with an attorney a while back and he suggested that there be a first shot or one bite rule.

Until an officer had actually been bitten (in the case of a "threatening dog") or there must actually be an officer down with a gunshot wound before their firearms can leave the holster. He suggested that either of these conditions would prove that any use of force on the side of the police would thereafter be justified.

Sounds like he wants to get officers killed or mauled. It only takes one shot.
-Cody

mrbigbluelight

Officer David Cawthorn then fired multiple shots with the pepperball gun, striking Anthony Mitchell three times as he “lay defenseless on the floor of his living room,” the lawsuit said . He was then handcuffed and taken to jail.
The lawsuit said police also shot his “cowering dog” with a pepperball gun. The dog fled out an open door and was left trapped outside without water, food or shelter for most of that July day.

Well ......

Minus having warrants, police occupied both homes and rummaged through the Mitchells’ belongings, including opening cabinets and using a water dispenser, according to the lawsuit.

Well ....

There are several comments about how Mr. Mitchell was video tapping the SWAT team and relaying their position to the perp 2 doors down.

Well ....

Maximillian, I would agree that we, at this time, don't know the whole story.
But, let's make the assumption that Anthony Mitchell was taping the SWAT teams position to the perp.
So, we have the local "Protect & Serve" personnel make the determination to leave their Mobil Swat Command Center and forcibly enter a private residence to prevent the transmission of this vital "tactical information".
Just curious, how did these armed-to-the-teeth personnel come about this determination/revelation ?
If they KNEW the (I assume) cell phone transmissions were coming from Anthony Mitchell's residence, why not use a cell jammer ?
Readily available everywhere now, possibly even at Spencer's gifts.

Just curious, too: were there local TV station choppers in the air, filming the event(s) ?
If so, I'm sure they were told to "clear the air space", etc, but just as sure, IMO, they probably didn't.
So what then ? Bust in to the local news station(s) ? Probably not, for they have political connections.

Police asked Michael Mitchell to come to their command post to see whether he could help talk Phillip White into surrendering.
Michael Mitchell was told White wasn’t taking any calls and was told he could not return to his home.

Well, darn the luck ! I suppose the chief detectives were on vacation that day, so the "Serve and Protect" personnel on duty didn't realize that , "Hey, let's call Phillip White from Michael Mitchell's house".

It was a clever tactic, IMO. Get Mr. Mitchell out of the house, then the AR15-toting-body-armorred-chemical-weapon-laden-"Protect and Serve"-personnel would only have to face 1 potential deadly terrorist, Mrs Lindsay-"Physically Frail"-Mitchell.
Thanks goodness, I guess, that they were able to wrestle this dangerous citizen into submission.

....... My, oh, my what a brave new world we have that has such wondrous creatures in it.

....... All just my opinion, of course. Sort of a sad state of affairs, IMO, when Walt Kelly's comic strip character "Pogo" displays more awareness of the current state of affairs than a lot of the populus:

"We have met the enemy and he is us".

Just my biased opinion, of course.

maximillian

Call jammers are not nice devices. If someone nearby tries to place a 911 call while the police were jamming, and they weren't able to get through, and then that someone dies. Then there will be huge consequences for the police. So if they wanted to stop Mr. Mitchell, then going over to his home and asking/making him stop would be better.

I agree, I hate the militarization of the police. And it boils my blood to hear about any form of police brutality. But the story and comments raises a bunch of questions that could play to either side. So a little patience while the details pan out would be prudent.

Toolfan66

Another story that makes one happy to be an American, and where our country is headed, funny thing is most of those guys probably own an American flag and have it outside their home.

Someday man will wonder what happened to MEN..

tonyb

As far as I'm concerned, not too many details I can think of that would be forthcoming that would justify their behavior. Pepper bomb a defenseless man showing no aggression ? Just beating down his door off the bat is wrong. Sure a whole swat team could handle this guy ? Being the kung-Fu master he probably is ?

Seriously, they must be pumping these guys with testosterone supplements in their water. We have a college kid getting the terrorist treatment over a case of water. Jacked up cops at road checks too. Remember when they set that guys house on fire when they realized a cop killer was inside ?

I wish they'd chase down real criminals with the same zeal they have for law abiding citizens. Now, not to rehash an old argument, but given the scenario, and protecting your family, wouldn't owning automatic weapons be of some use to this man should it have become even uglier ? What do you do exactly, when you can't even trust those who are sworn to protect you ? Shame I even have to say that.

obieone

Once again, I'll reserve judgment until the FACTS are learned.

tonyb

maximillian wrote: »

Call jammers are not nice devices. If someone nearby tries to place a 911 call while the police were jamming, and they weren't able to get through, and then that someone dies. Then there will be huge consequences for the police. So if they wanted to stop Mr. Mitchell, then going over to his home and asking/making him stop would be better.

I agree, I hate the militarization of the police. And it boils my blood to hear about any form of police brutality. But the story and comments raises a bunch of questions that could play to either side. So a little patience while the details pan out would be prudent.

Call jammers have come along way. You can isolate a single phone line. Besides, even if it did interfere with a 911 call "nearby", half the frickin' police force is outside your door anyway.

Years ago, you could get a nifty device that suction cupped to a window and you could dial any number and listen in. That was 20 years ago, today.....heck they probably have wrist watches that could do that.

Point being, the police had options.....but took the most offending one and probably illegal one. You could say "so what", let them get sued. Who do you think pays all those lawsuits ? They are tax payer funded after all. What...this guy sues, walks with a few million, cops get a slap on the wrist maybe desk duty for awhile and the process continues to get worse. Police pay higher amounts for insurance....but who cares, it won't come out of their pockets in the end. They can just tax you more, and if you say no....then they start laying off important services like firemen, teachers, garbage collections, elderly services, etc because the city budget you know just isn't big enough.

rpf65

If it turns out that law enforcement did in fact break into this persons home, arrest him for being uncooperative, and generally think it is more important to violate one persons civil rights to "get the job done", then they should simply be arrested, tried, convicted, and serve time in prison.

If it turns out that the home owner is lying, then he should pay all court/legal costs, and be tried for slander, or whatever the proper terminology is, and if found guilty suffer the consequences.

Seems that a large problem facing society today is nobody is accountable for his/her actions.

Simple when one looks at it. Should the home owner have helped law enforcement: Yes. Did the home owner have to help law enforcement: No. No reason needs to be given, just not wanting too is reason enough.

If the home owner was in fact assisting the criminal, prove it, and convict him, her, or them.

One if these days people are going to quit asking what if, and realize that since it didn't, it really doesn't matter. Bad things happen to people all the time, and that is simply a chance we all take. I really can't think of one person that is more important than anybody else, but then again I'm just a person who just tries to do what he is supposed to do, and hopes everybody else will do the same.

maximillian

Not sure how many options there really were.... again, there are some questions from the article that leads me to believe that there are other facts that haven't come out yet. Hey, if the facts are truly as stated in the main article, then I will be the first to say that the officers need to be fired and jailed for their actions. The police chief also should loose his job, and the town should pay out some cash.

However, here's a scenario that I see that could warrant their actions....
- man barricades himself with a child. Threats are made, and there is suspicion of weapons involved.
- stand-off lasts for hours. Police tap the landline and cell phone.
- Police find out that one of the neighbors (informant) is tipping off the perp. about police plans and strategy.
- Police have to abandon their plans since they are compromised and rethink their tactic of saving a child possibly in mortal danger.
- Police find out the informant has some prior criminal behavior and has registered firearms.
- Police take action to shutdown the informant.
- Informant doesn't cooperate to allow police to enter thus resisting them.

The above is from what several of the comments to the article linked above. I don't know if they are credible or not. And as I mentioned already, not sure why the police wouldn't just arrest the informant for interfering with a police investigation, aiding and abetting, and resisting arrest (not opening the door). So the details seem sketchy to me. So instead of immediately crucifying the police and jumping to conclusions, I merely am reserving judgment pending more facts.

nooshinjohn

obieone wrote: »

Once again, I'll reserve judgment until the FACTS are learned.

Anthony Mitchell and his father were jailed for about nine hours at the Henderson Detention Center before they were bailed out.

Both cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case was forever closed, according to Henderson Municipal Court records.

I think this is a pretty relevant fact. For a Court to dismiss a case WITH PREJUDICE means that the authority leveling the charge had absolutely zero standing in the eyes of the court. Put another way, the cops and the DA had absolutely no facts, anecdotal or hard proof that the victims of this abuse did anything wrong, period, exclamation point.

That being the case, it would give far greater weight to the claims made by the victims in this case.

Personally, I would say that I would love to see this go all the way to SCOTUS, but with the completely scatterbrained rulings coming from them recently, I am almost certain they would find a hair or two to split and come up with a decision that would have even greater ramifications for freedom somewhere down the road.

tonyb

maximillian wrote: »

However, here's a scenario that I see that could warrant their actions....
- man barricades himself with a child. Threats are made, and there is suspicion of weapons involved.
- stand-off lasts for hours. Police tap the landline and cell phone.
- Police find out that one of the neighbors (informant) is tipping off the perp. about police plans and strategy.
- Police have to abandon their plans since they are compromised and rethink their tactic of saving a child possibly in mortal danger.
- Police find out the informant has some prior criminal behavior and has registered firearms.
- Police take action to shutdown the informant.
- Informant doesn't cooperate to allow police to enter thus resisting them.
.

Man barricading himself with a child, maybe his, possibly a gun owner, what crime is committed ? Unless they had reason to believe someone was in harms way, sure, still gives them no right to take possession of an innocents property. You do not have to cooperate with police, you don't have to answer questions, submit to warrantless searches or seizures. They can abuse their power and pay a fine in the way of a lawsuit....can you do the same ? Can you pepper spray the police who broke down your door, firearms drawn, no warrants, and put fear for your families safety in your mind ? Without going to jail ? See what I'm saying ? See why they want to ban automatic weapons ? It's not a 2 way street anymore. Who's to protect you or your family from the police ? You yourself bear that responsibility. Big deal if you have the law on your side, lawyers/judges aren't there the split second someone comes crashing through your front door with weapons.

I know....I know....wacky to even think you need to protect yourself or property from police. You can't deny....well maybe you can if your head is buried in the sand, the divides this nation/our society is seeing lately. Personally, I think we are more divided today than in the 60's.

Face

FYI, these kind of unfortunate incidents have been going on for more than a few years now(10+), they're nothing new.

nooshinjohn

The Indiana SC just came up with this one, completely wiping out the 4th amendment...

Losing constitutional faith? Don’t read this (via Michael Walsh).


Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

tonyb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The Indiana SC just came up with this one, completely wiping out the 4th amendment...

How does that not get challenged or kicked up to a higher court ? People of Indiana are fairly conservative, can't see them swallowing this one without a fight.

tonyb

Never mind John, found my own answers on Justice Stephen David.

"David is a member of the American Judicature Society, the leading institutional proponent of the Missouri Plan, and beneficiary of more than $1 million in contributions from George Soros’s Open Society Institute since 2000."