Police raid wrong house, injure toddler, lots of questions about this SW

[Bodhi]

Did anyone else catch this story ….

Family says Elyria Police raided wrong house, injured sick toddler; Police release statement

Elyria Police issued a statement Friday evening after allegations emerged about a search warrant execution involving a sick child.

www.cleveland19.com

 

[ccc]

Three sides to the truth, your side, my side, and then there is the truth…………..

 

[IronBeard]

Nothing like outdated intel multiplied by "the need to succeed." All the wrong things for the right reasons, I guess. At least it was in Ohio...

 

[sloporsche]

a tad slanted article written by the families lawyer ? a complete history health and finances but not much on the criminal history of the house hhhhmmmmm

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

I'd like to read the PC affidavit submitted to the Judge for the search warrant. Would also be nice to see/read the pre-operational Risk Assessment (if the SWAT Team even uses one) on the residence and occupants.

Not enough unbiased info to render an opinion on the situation... but on face value it does look like an inflated claim aimed at cashing in.

Now days, who knows the truth anymore.

 

[B52]

Cops total screw up. Why no prior stakeout of the residence. Hell a couple of game cameras would have told them if their suspect was even there. There were 20-30 cops to catch a teenager? That's 5 times more than they used to catch Bonny and Clyde. Cops just wanted a good show for the use of tax dollars.

 

[Bodhi]

I read elsewhere that the police were looking for a 14yo and that the house was only recently rented to the family of the injured child. So surveillance would have been good. The excuse of using flash bangs or whatever outside the residence before entry is a lie…the infant injuries state otherwise - and who in the heck uses them outside? Defeats the purpose! Additionaly, what could a 14yo have allegedly done that required SWAT and a search warrant? I’d like to read and review that application for the search warrant and officer probable cause affidavit.

I’m repulsed by this, and as a lawyer who practices a good amount of criminal defense work, all I can say is f*ck your think blue line …


I’ll be watching this to see how it ends.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

I read elsewhere that the police were looking for a 14yo and that the house was only recently rented to the family of the injured child. So surveillance would have been good. The excuse of using flash bangs or whatever outside the residence before entry is a lie…the infant injuries state otherwise - and who in the heck uses them outside? Defeats the purpose! Additionaly, what could a 14yo have allegedly done that required SWAT and a search warrant? I’d like to read and review that application for the search warrant and officer probable cause affidavit.

I’m repulsed by this, and as a lawyer who practices a good amount of criminal defense work, all I can say is f*ck your think blue line …


I’ll be watching this to see how it ends.

NOT DEFENDING THE COPS... but as a fifteen year SWAT guy with six years as a Team Commander of a twenty-three man team I can assure you...

Diversionary devices are in fact deployed outside, that's a preferred and contemporary tactic. With that said, they should be deployed AWAY from the point of entry, in this case, they should have been deployed in the back of the house vs. the front where the team was making entry. The point is to draw attention AWAY from the entry point, even if for a split-second. So yes, the outside deployment is legit.

In the event you have to deploy one inside, it's highly desired, in fact part of deployment certification training, to quick-peek the area before you insert it if safety allows to avoid having one land on a person. You don't just "throw" them, you simply make a gentle toss so as to control the depth of insertion into a room or area.

Looks like inadequate intel was done on the target location.

ETA- when we had to insert a device into a structure, we used break and rake poles that hold the device. After breaking the window, the pole is inserted and canted upwards towards the ceiling in a effort to avoid injury to unseen occupants, that way physical control of the device is maintained.

 

[MarkJ]

a tad slanted article written by the families lawyer ? a complete history health and finances but not much on the criminal history of the house hhhhmmmmm

Honest question here, why would the criminal history of the house carry any serious weight in this case? Wouldn't the PD do their due diligence, find out the house was rented out to new tenants, run background on the tenants and determine risk?

 

[Bodhi]

NOT DEFENDING THE COPS... but as a fifteen year SWAT guy with six years as a Team Commander of a twenty-three man team I can assure you...

Diversionary devices are in fact deployed outside, that's a preferred and contemporary tactic. With that said, they should be deployed AWAY from the point of entry, in this case, they should have been deployed in the back of the house vs. the front where the team was making entry. The point is to draw attention AWAY from the entry point, even if for a split-second. So yes, the outside deployment is legit.

In the event you have to deploy one inside, it's highly desired, in fact part of deployment certification training, to quick-peek the area before you insert it if safety allows to avoid having one land on a person. You don't just "throw" them, you simply make a gentle toss so as to control the depth of insertion into a room or area.

Looks like inadequate intel was done on the target location.

ETA- when we had to insert a device into a structure, we used break and rake poles that hold the device. After breaking the window, the pole is inserted and canted upwards towards the ceiling in a effort to avoid injury to unseen occupants, that way physical control of the device is maintained.

Good to know. Thanks. I stand corrected and informed. Still seems like way overkill, like the general militarization of police forces (my opinion only). But then again I’m a criminal defense attorney.

 

[Carl]

Why not just pick the person up when they leave the house instead? Unless its some kind of dire emergency. Seems safer for everyone including the cops and the pets.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

Honest question here, why would the criminal history of the house carry any serious weight in this case? Wouldn't the PD do their due diligence, find out the house was rented out to new tenants, run background on the tenants and determine risk?

Yes, all part of the intel packet, threat assessment, and pre-operational briefing.

It's possible the suspect teenager knows the occupants and they were holding the stolen firearms. Unlikely, but possible.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

Good to know. Thanks. I stand corrected and informed. Still seems like way overkill, like the general militarization of police forces (my opinion only). But then again I’m a criminal defense attorney.

Not all agencies or teams are operating under the best standards or leadership.

ETA- as an attorney, you of all people should know better than to make uneducated declarative statements... "The excuse of using flash bangs or whatever outside the residence before entry is a lie…"

 

[Bodhi]

Honest question here, why would the criminal history of the house carry any serious weight in this case? Wouldn't the PD do their due diligence, find out the house was rented out to new tenants, run background on the tenants and determine risk?

Probably in the context of, “it’s a known drug den or it’s a neighborhood with frequent drug activity…”. It’s to drop the probable cause threshold to secure the warrant, more than likely.

There are some cops - sad to say - that view civilians as the enemy and will do all manner of s*it to make cases. Maybe that happened here, IDK. But as this plays out, we will learn more.
So to your point, yes, they should have done much more due diligence, but it appears they did not.

 

[Bodhi]

Yes, all part of the intel packet, threat assessment, and pre-operational briefing.

It's possible the suspect teenager knows the occupants and they were holding the stolen firearms. Unlikely, but possible.

It will be interesting to see what discovery is conducted in any impending civil case, if it gets that far.

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

It will be interesting to see what discovery is conducted in any impending civil case, if it gets that far.

It will... lawyers will see to it lol.

 

[sloporsche]

It will be interesting to see what discovery is conducted in any impending civil case, if it gets that far.

the trap queen will get a pay out as usual

 

[Bodhi]

the trap queen will get a pay out as usual

But maybe ....maybe....the police conduct in this raid will be "corrected" and adjusted so the next time......

 

[MarkJ]

Is this number of officers normal for this? Were there even more officers around back to catch the rabbits?

It also looks like one of the flashbangs was thrown inside or right at the front of the house.


First video of this X Post....

Video

 

[Bowhntr6pt]

Why not just pick the person up when they leave the house instead? Unless its some kind of dire emergency. Seems safer for everyone including the cops and the pets.

Apparently the point of the operation was to search the house for stashed stolen firearms.