Warning against encroachments on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn's home based on information that Quinn's son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Institute attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
It seems to me that the fact pattern in this case is not entirely ideal, but it's worth a try. The combination of no-knock service without a warrant authorizing it and the execution of a family member under no personal suspicion of illegal activity is a good one.
Given the amount of contraband found and who was charged with possessing it (not the person named in the warrant), I'm betting it was "found" after one of the police officers involved dropped it.
The rule of law requires that people under suspicion of a crime be given the opportunity to comply peacefully. No-knock raids that execute people for owning a firearm and defending their home against invaders who have provided no opportunity to ascertain their identity or legal purpose are a mockery of justice.
This entry was published Tue Jan 07 09:42:04 CST 2014 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2014-01-07 09:42:04.0.