Great article on police militarization

[Lyion]

Our Militarized Police Departments

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime
Radley Balko | July 2, 2007


Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, estimates we’ve seen a startling 1,500 percent increase in the use of SWAT teams in this country from the early 80s until the early 2000s. And the vast majority of these SWAT raids are for routine warrant service.

These violent raids on American homes, when coupled with the imperfect, often ugly methods used in drug policing, have set the stage for disturbingly frequent cases of police raiding the homes not only of recreational, nonviolent drug users, but the homes of people completely innocent of any crime at all.

Take a look at the map on the monitor (http://www.cato.org/raidmap). This is a map of the botched paramilitary police raids I found while researching a paper for the Cato Institute last summer. It is by no means inclusive. It only includes those cases for which I was able to find a newspaper account or court record. Based on my research, I’m convinced that the vast majority of victims of mistaken raids are to afraid, intimidated, embarrassed, or concerned about retaliation to report what happened to them.

Pay particular attention to the red markers on the map. Those are the approximately 40 cases where a mistaken raid resulted in the death of a completely innocent American citizen.

The most recent example of course is the drug raid in Atlanta last fall that killed 92-year old Kathryn Johnston. Ms. Johnston mistook the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. When she met them with a gun, they opened fire and killed her. The police were acting on an uncorroborated tip from a convicted felon.

I’d estimate I find news reports of mistaken raids on Americans homes about once a week. If you’re wondering, yes, there was one just this week. This past Saturday, in Durango, Colorado, police raided the home of 77-year-old Virginia Herrick. Ms. Herrick, who takes oxygen, was forced to the ground and handcuffed at gunpoint while officers ravaged through her home.

They had the wrong address. In just the last month, there have been mistaken raids in New York City; Annapolis, Maryland; Hendersonville, North Carolina; Bonner County, Idaho; and Stockton, California.

In each case, innocent American citizens had the sanctity of their homes invaded by agents of the government behaving more like soldiers at war than peace officers upholding and protecting our constitutional rights.

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Congress consider ending the federal incentives that are driving this trend, and that the Congress reign in the copious use of SWAT teams and among federal police agencies.

There are appropriate uses for these kinds of tactics. But the bulk of the dramatic rise in paramilitary police operations is attributable to inappropriate use of SWAT teams for routine warrant service.

It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear. America’s domestic police departments should be populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force.

[Spazz]

Its all the anti drug warriors . if youve got nothing to hide youve got nothing to worry about and the if it saves one childs life its worth it types that make this bullshit possible

[Narrock]

Its all the anti drug warriors . if youve got nothing to hide youve got nothing to worry about and the if it saves one childs life its worth it types that make this bullshit possible

Oh, if closed-minded people only came with closed mouths...

/sigh

[Spazz]

How am I close minded on this issue homie ?

[Narrock]

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

[Harrison]

I hate to agree with him, but he's right.

[Martrae]

I agree with Spazz. If there were no 'war on drugs' then the police wouldn't have become militarized.

[Arlos]

Prohibition was a spectacularly bad idea when we tried it with Alcohol. It just drove it underground and gave rise to organized criminal groups who handled smuggling and distribution, and made gazillions. That was the Mafia.

Why anyone thought it would work any better with any other intoxicant that the populace actually still wants to use, I have no idea. All it's done is give rise to organized criminal groups who handle smuggling and distribution, and make even more gazillions since production is often even cheaper than making booze. These are the modern drug cartels, who are worse than the mafia ever was, pretty much.

It has been shown time and time again that criminalization + enforcement gets you nowhere. If you really want to make a dent in the problem you need to focus your efforts on education support and treatment. It is manifestly obvious the current method doesn't work, and has led to the police militarization as well as the escalation of armaments among the drug gangs as well. It's time to do away with the failed methods of the past, and try something new.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

/agree Arlos

This is one of the few times you'll see me say that.

[Lyion]

Ditto here. I'm for strong national defense and keeping the bad guys at bay abroad. I am not for any of this silliness and gestapo bullshit police tactics that have evolved over the last 30 years.

There should be a very limited scope of powers when serving a warrant. They should not be bringing in 20 stormtroopers with their uber ramming SUV and running in like it's an IDF raid in Beirut

[10sun]

How many ways does the war on terror echo the war on drugs on our home soil?

[Narrock]

I agree with Spazz. If there were no 'war on drugs' then the police wouldn't have become militarized.

Drugs aren't the only reason why the police have become militarized.

[Spazz]

Oh what else is a contributing factor ? Quit being like harriwin and post something with some substance.

[10sun]

I agree with Spazz. If there were no 'war on drugs' then the police wouldn't have become militarized.

Drugs aren't the only reason why the police have become militarized.

There is a distinct lack of information, what are the other reasons for the police forces transforming into paramilitary forces?

[Gaazy]

Most likely, you wont get another answer, youll get a "your stupid im right" answer~

[Harrison]

Oh what else is a contributing factor ? Quit being like harriwin and post something with some substance.

Suck my dick little boy.

[Narrock]

Oh, you know like when somebody goes apeshit and goes on a murderous rampage and starts shooting a bunch of innocent people, and they hole up in a building... or bank robbers or store robbers that take hostages and barricade themselves in a building... it goes on and on. Drugs are only a part of the equation of why the police have become militarized. I fully support the specialized units of law enforcement, like SWAT teams and the like.

So about 40 people Nationwide die per year because of a botched police raid? Considering we're a nation of over 300 million people... that's not a bad statistic at all.

[Arlos]

Mindia, no one is arguing against the use of SWAT teams against highly armed bank robbers or crazed gunmen holed up in buildings with hostages. We had SWAT teams even before the recent militarization, and that is just fine.

What they ARE arguing against is using those same SWAT teams against Joe Average who just has a possession warrant against them, with no evidence they have any weapons or any violent tendencies whatsoever.

I mean, look at that Atlanta case. Why in hell should a SWAT team have done a surprise full-combat raid on some old lady's house based on an UNCORROBORATED rumor from a known felon? That's insane. Indeed, why should SWAT *EVER* be called out except to deal with highly armed and highly dangerous known criminals? How would you feel if it was a family member that got shot because some felon, trying to get less jail time, randomly picked out your family member's address and claimed there was a meth lab there? That's basically what happened with that grandmother. Cops had no evidence except that tip, and went in full military style, no warnings, nothing. Lady was completely innocent, thought they were burglers, pulled out a shotgun to defend her home, and SWAT blew her away.

It's plain fact that back 40 years ago, before this all started, we didn't have the armed drug gangs like we have now, so the police didnt' feel any need to get militarized themselves. Once drug gangs started sporting uzis and AK-47s though, the police felt an understandable need to match pace. The problem is, the cops didn't limit their use of that military strength to ONLY those for whom it is necessary, they've started using it against completely non-violent people where it is utterly unnecessary, and it's causing needless deaths of completely innocent people.

The important point in that, though, is that without the "War on Drugs", the criminal gangs would never have existed, and thus there'd never have been an arms race between police and criminals. Without the arms race, we'd still be like we were 40 years ago, with smaller, far more infrequently used SWAT teams, called out ONLY in the most violent of cases.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

I would agree that SWAT should only be called into action in scenarios like with the bank robbers, gunmen, kidnappers, etc. holed up somewhere.

[Darcler]

I watch Dallas SWAT sometimes on A&E and the force they use to get someone with a warrant for drug possession is nuts. Pulling the doors and windows out, rushing in while the guy is just chillin in his living room eating Cheetos. Could have just knocked

[Arlos]

I would agree that SWAT should only be called into action in scenarios like with the bank robbers, gunmen, kidnappers, etc. holed up somewhere.

I am glad we are in agreement on that fact.

But that's just the problem, you see? That's NOT all that SWAT is being used for, and that's what the article is complaining about. No one wants to tie cops' hands in dealing with bank robbers with AK-47s, not at all. But military style house raids that result in innocent people getting killed, when there was no indication of the suspects being armed in any way or with any hint of violent tendencies whatsoever? That's crazy, and has to be stopped.

-Arlos

[Diekan]

Its all the anti drug warriors . if youve got nothing to hide youve got nothing to worry about and the if it saves one childs life its worth it types that make this bullshit possible

Oh, if closed-minded people only came with closed mouths...

/sigh

OMG! This coming for a guy who thinks the Patriot Act is a good idea? Who in fact used the same wordage of "if you got nothing to hide..."

ROFL

[Lueyen]

I would agree that SWAT should only be called into action in scenarios like with the bank robbers, gunmen, kidnappers, etc. holed up somewhere.

I am glad we are in agreement on that fact.

But that's just the problem, you see? That's NOT all that SWAT is being used for, and that's what the article is complaining about. No one wants to tie cops' hands in dealing with bank robbers with AK-47s, not at all. But military style house raids that result in innocent people getting killed, when there was no indication of the suspects being armed in any way or with any hint of violent tendencies whatsoever? That's crazy, and has to be stopped.

-Arlos

Some of the statements the author of the article makes seem to lean toward complete removal of all military style tactics and weapons. I'm pretty sure judges can place stipulations to some degree on how an issued warrant is executed, perhaps the answer is to promote or build in if it's not there already more detailed aspects of warrant execution.

The issue of the war on drugs is sort of a sideline, although it does have a prominent effect as to the why the real solution must address all cases including warrants issued for reasons other then drugs. Judges should require something beyond just the basics for issuing a warrant to allow a house to be raided. There should be reasonable evidence that police or public will face imminent danger without the use of SWAT type tactics and equipment before a warrant authorizes it. There also should probably be allowances made for circumstances where non raid situations would allow escape or destruction of evidence, and that is where it gets really hard to approach a line without crossing it.

[Yamori]

I'm curious, what happens in financial terms when police tear up some person's house under a warrant - particularly if it turns out to be bogus? Does the government pay for repairs, or do they just completely fuck the property owner over and leave them with broken windows n' such?

[Lueyen]

I'm curious, what happens in financial terms when police tear up some person's house under a warrant - particularly if it turns out to be bogus? Does the government pay for repairs, or do they just completely fuck the property owner over and leave them with broken windows n' such?

I'm sure laws vary state to state, but I think in most cases you would end up having to sue. If the raid turns up anything you are likely screwed. If it doesn't then it's likely the state is liable for damages. Of course being liable doesn't mean they will pay without it going through the courts. Some cases the police departments have apologized and covered damages, but I think in most cases people end up suing the state.

Suing the individual officers would most likely be fruitless, as the personal liability is by virtue of performance on the job regarded as transfered to the police department.

Basically it's not unlike a business ruining your personal property. They might pony up, or you might have to sue, but you'll likely not have much luck suing the individual who actually did the damage.