THE HIDDEN FORCE BEHIND
GEORGIA’S MOVE TO LEGALIZE NO-KNOCK SEARCHES
Unanimous
Public Opposition at Senate No-Knock Search Warrant Hearings
On
March 4, a Senate Non-Civil Judiciary Committee passed Chairman Jesse Stone’s
SB159 bill that proposes to legalize no-knock searches for the first time in
Georgia history. Two days earlier the committee heard testimony but did not
vote on SB45, Sen. Vincent Fort’s bill that also introduces no-knock searches.
Both bills mirror no-knock search language in Rep. Kevin Tanner’s HB56 which
passed a subcommittee hearing two weeks prior. Stone submitted his bill
immediately after citizens convinced Rep. Tanner to suspend pursuing his bill
during the session due to growing public concern. Stone then scheduled a
hearing for his bill the day after it was read in the Senate. SB159 may have
slipped through with no opposition but weather threats caused state offices to
close and the hearing to be delayed.
During
the rescheduled Senate hearings no member of the public or law enforcement
spoke in favor of the bills. All members of the public, two lawyers, a law
enforcement officer and even the family member of a victim testified against
it. So many members of the public signed up to testify that they ran out
of time at the first hearing on Monday. Most members of the public wore
stickers indicating opposition to the bill and they sat directly in the first
two rows in front of the Senators. Nevertheless, 7 senators voted for SB159
after amending it and it passed out of committee.
Illegal
No-Knock Raids Result in in Murder, Maiming
Awareness
of Georgia no-knock searches escalated in 2014. On May 28, a 19-month-old
toddler, Bou Bou Phonesavanh, was critically injured in his Habersham Co. home
when deputies broke in expecting to arrest someone who had made a $50 meth sale
to an informant. Reports indicate that Nikki Autry issued an illegal no-knock
search warrant signed by Judge James Butterworth while Deputy Charles Long
hurled a flash-bang grenade into “Bou” “Bou’s” crib causing severe injuries to
his face and chest. Over 35,000 people signed Sen. Fort’s petition to pass
“Bou” “Bou’s” law that would require officer training and raise a standard from
reasonable suspicion to probable cause. But SB45 has no provision for officer
training and it actually would lower the standard in Georgia code from illegal
to allowable with probable cause.
On
Sept. 24 in Dublin Georgia, Laurens Co. undercover deputies broke into the home
of David Hooks, a 59-year old construction company owner and grandfather. They
fired at least 17 shots inside, some through walls, and Hooks died from
multiple wounds. He was shot twice in the back while lying on the floor,
according to family attorney Mitchell Shook. Hooks, a hunter, offered no known
resistance even though he and his wife Teresa, thought they were being
burglarized again. Sheriff Bill Harrell indicated that deputies were justified
in killing Hooks because he had an unloaded shotgun on his person but the
sheriff did not explain why Hooks would have picked up an unloaded weapon to
defend his property. Deputies searched the home for 44 hours and did not
find a single trace of drugs.
The deputies acted on a tip from a
methamphetamine addict who burglarized Hooks’ home and stole his SUV two nights
earlier. Despite
tipster Rodney Garrett’s lack of credibility, Deputy Chris Brewer obtained a
“knock and announce” warrant and got Magistrate Judge Faith Snell to sign it.
But the deputies broke in instead, according to Teresa Hooks who survived the
attack. Brewer has a long history of questionable tactics. In 2002, he
filed a suit against District Attorney, Ralph Walke for libel, slander and
breech of contract in performing his duties. Walke had refused to prosecute
Brewer’s warrants and contended to Brewer’s superiors that Brewer had committed
perjury at least six times.
Disinformation
Campaign Misleads Media, Public
After
studying the three no-knock bills, it is apparent that there is a massive
disinformation campaign of myths behind them. Bill sponsors claim that no-knock
searches are legal in Georgia, however, the clear plain text of O.C.G.A.
17-5-27 requires officers to give “good faith verbal notice of intent” describing
their “authority and purpose” before executing a search warrant.
Sponsors
justify their argument that no-knock searches have been legalized in case law,
by referencing to two court rulings that have each made an exception for a
specific case. Case law applies only to rulings in specific cases. There is no
provision in the Georgia Constitution for the judicial branch to create
legislation. That power is granted solely to the General Assembly. Judges can
interpret law for a case but a Judge cannot override a Georgia law unless
the judge declares it unconstitutional.
Bill
sponsors claim the bills will place restrictions on no-knock searches but the
bills actually remove the ultimate restriction by attempting to legalize them.
Sponsors also assert that the bills will reduce the number of no-knock searches
but it is obvious that legalization will increase, not decrease, the number.
Thus, the public is being enticed to support the bills based on claims that
the bills add controls on no-knock search warrants when the bills actually
lower the standard to obtain no-knock search warrants.
The
Hidden Agenda to Eliminate Criminal Liability
Some
legislators insist that they have no alternative other than to legalize
no–knock search warrants but there are a variety of restrictions that
legislators could place into the code to protect Georgia citizens. For example
they could:
Precisely define the conditions of a good faith verbal
notice of intent to search
Create penal statues for law enforcement officers who
execute illegal search warrants
Exclude any evidence collected in an illegal search from
being used at a trial
File impeachment charges against judges who fail to discharge duties in
agreement with the law
Deputies
and police do not seem enthralled with the bills since they may be called to
unnecessarily risk their lives in a no-knock search raid that conflicts with
O.C.G.A. 16-3-23, the right to use force in defense of habitation. Once police
are not required to identify themselves, residents may think home is being
burglarized during a nighttime raid and choose to defend their property. That
creates a risk of gun battles between police and innocent law abiding citizens
inside their home. So who benefits from that?
The
text of the original bills have one overriding primary purpose: That is to
prevent law enforcement from being held criminally liable for crimes committed
during highly profitable, illegal raids. Ironically, the Georgia General
Assembly proposes to remove this protection of accountability just as the
public all across America is demanding more accountability from law enforcement
and judges. Riots and unrest that other states have experienced could now
increase in Georgia if such a law is passed. After
eliminating the possibility of finding
law enforcement criminally liable for an illegal raid, the families of future
victims will have little or no legal recourse in Georgia courts. This
hidden agenda is exactly opposite of what the public is being led to
believe about how the bills will control no-knock searches.
The
Force behind Georgia’s Move to Legalize No-Knock Searches
When
SB159 was introduced suspicion intensified as to why three bills that had
nearly identical language to legalize no-knock searches had been submitted to
the legislature. The bills spanned both the House and the Senate and included
versions by both the Democrats and Republicans. Although senators were
unwilling to conform to public demand during the Senate hearings, those
hearings revealed that the hidden force behind all of the strange behavior is
the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia.
The
Prosecuting Attorneys Council (PAC) is a taxpayer funded entity within the
judicial branch of the Georgia state government. It is separate from the
Attorney General’s office which is in the executive branch. PAC is somewhat of
a rogue organization that reports to no one in the judiciary. The council is
essentially run by Executive Director Chuck Spahos and PAC Chairman Danny
Porter. Spahos, the Henry Co. Solicitor General and Porter, the Gwinnett Co.
District Attorney, testified for SB159 on March 4.
During
his SB159 testimony, Chuck Spahos admitted that he assisted in drafting the
language of the bills. Each bill has an identical clause to provide for
no-knock search warrants that override current Georgia code. O.C.G.A. 17.5.27
requires an officer to provide an “attempt in good faith to give verbal
notice” of the “authority and purpose” in executing a search.
However, each bill prefixes current law with a clause that starts: “When a
search warrant does not contain a no-knock,..” That clause exempts law
officers from current requirements and subverts the protections that the law
provides Georgians against unreasonable search and seizure. It is Spahos who is
primarily responsible for the bill language that proposes to legalize no-knock
search warrants. Thus, Spahos is a key individual behind the hidden agenda to
eliminate criminal liability for law enforcement and judicial officers who
violate the law by authorizing illegal raids.
The
hidden agenda of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council became more obvious
throughout the Senate hearings. Porter, who favored SB159, signed up to testify
against SB45, which required probable cause for a no-knock search
warrant instead of reasonable suspicion. Sen. Fort’s probable cause amendment
eventually passed onto SB159 along with another amendment from Sen. Bethel.
That amendment required any judicial officer who issued a no-knock search
warrant and any law enforcement official who obtained such a warrant to explain
the usefulness of that warrant to the next impaneled grand jury. The amendment
would have helped end the practice by judicial activists of executing illegal
no-knock search warrants in Georgia. Once they passed, Chairman Jesse Stone
expressed his disappointment with the will of the committee. The Prosecuting
Attorneys Council then lost most of its interest in the bill.
Cover-Up
Expected in Hooks Investigation
Ironically
while working on this legislation, Chuck Spahos was recently appointed by
Attorney General Sam Olens to investigate the role of law enforcement in the
murder of David Hooks. Since Spahos is the primary individual behind the bill
language that proposes to eliminate criminal liability for law enforcement, it
is now clear that he has a supreme conflict of interest in heading an
investigation of the Hooks case. Thus, it is likely that the Hooks
investigation will go the way of a cover-up similar to other investigations
that have been conducted nationally. In several of those cases law enforcement
officers were absolved of responsibility after murdering innocent, unarmed citizens
who posed no threat to
them and committed no crime. Given that
the credibility of Spahos in investigating the Hooks matter is now compromised
by his role in drafting the highly controversial legislation, one key question
remains:
What
does Attorney General Sam Olens, plan to do about the appointment of Spahos?
Garland
Favorito
https://voterga.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/the-force-behind-georgias-move-to-legalize-no-knock-searches.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment