Cops continue
to
wonder why
people
don’t
trust
them.
Go
figure.
At
the
center
of
this
latest
“we’re
better
than
you”
posturing
by
law
enforcement
is
the
raid
of
the
wrong
house
by
self-proclaimed
“trained
and
experienced”
officers,
who
mistook one
Arab
male
for
another before
rushing
into
a
house
and
pointing
guns
at
everyone.
Now
that
there’s
an
official
complaint
in
place and
a
civil
rights
lawsuit
underway,
the
Raleigh
police
department
has
decided
the
public
would
be
better
served
by
keeping
its
recordings
of
the
raid
under
wraps.
Here’s Charlotte
Kramon
and
Jeffrey
Billman
reporting
for
Indy
Week:
On
Tuesday,
the
Raleigh
Police
Department
asked
a
judge
to
block
the
release
of
body-camera
footage
from the
botched
raid of
Amir
and
Mirian
Ibrahim
Abboud’s
home
in
April
2021. On
Thursday,
the
judge
obliged.
According
to
court
records,
an
RPD
SWAT
team
“suddenly
and
without
warning,
broke
and
busted
open
the
Abbouds’
front
door
with
a
battering
ram,
pointing
their
long,
AR-styled
firearms
at
Mr.
Abboud,
Mrs.
Abboud,
and
their
11-month-old
son.”
Though
the
search
warrant
was
ultimately
based
on
mistaken
identity—State
Bureau
of
Investigation
agents
confused
Abboud
with
a
neighbor
who
is
also
of
Arab
descent—the
police
refused
to
pay
for
the
damage,
court
records
show.
Sounds
like
a
lot
of
stuff
cops
do
all
the
time: raid
houses,
break
stuff,
screw
up,
and
refuse
to
apologize.
Victims
of
these
assaults
are
expected
to
just
suck
it
up
because
law
enforcement
often
needs
to
move
fast
and (literally)
break
things.
In
this
case,
the
Raleigh
PD
actually
went
to
court
to
argue
against
the
release
of
body
cam
footage
of
this
botched
raid.
It
didn’t
have
to
do
this
but
it
did.
Worse,
it
got
a
court
to
agree
with
its
arguments
—
arguments
that
were
patently
ridiculous.
The
RPD
pointed
out
that
an
attorney
for
the
Abbouds
had
released
home
security
footage
of
the
raid
online,
which
the
police
said
made
releasing
the
body
camera
footage
redundant.
At
the
same
time,
the
RPD
claimed
that
releasing
the
body
camera
footage
might
expose
confidential
information
about
search
warrant
execution
or
damage
officers’
reputations.
It’s
only
in
cases
like
these
that
government
entities
seem
to
feel
redundancy
is
a
bad
thing.
And
if
no
harm
was
done
to
officers
by
the
release
of
the
home
security
footage,
it
seems
no
harm
would
occur
if
the
PD
released
its own footage.
But
after
arguing
the
public
had
all
the
footage
it
deserved,
the
RPD
went
on
to
argue
that
the
supposedly
“redundant”
footage
would
somehow
“expose
confidential
information”
or
“damage
officers’
reputations”
if
it
released
its
own
footage.
Not
only
that,
but
the
PD’s
lawyer
claimed
releasing
footage
of
a
wrong
house
raid
captured
on
home
security
cameras
would
somehow
endanger
the
RPD
itself.
At
Tuesday’s
hearing,
RPD
attorney
Sherita
Walton
told
Houston—who
was appointed by
Senate
leader
Phil
Berger
last
year—that
the
Abboud
raid
was
“valid
on
its
face”
and
insisted
that
none
of
the
officers
did
anything
wrong.
Walton
said
releasing
the
footage
would
be
“dangerous.”
(The
SBI
also
asked
Judge
Houston
to
withhold
the
footage.)
All
of
these
arguments
are
equally
stupid.
Footage
can
be
edited
to
remove
“confidential
information”
and
protect
the
identities
of
the
officers
involved
in
the
wrong
house
raid.
As
for
“damaging
reputations,”
what
even
is
the
point
of
this
argument?
The
involved
officers
did
what
they
did
and
any
reputational
damage
is
due
to
their
own
actions.
It
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
residents
of
a
house
that
was
only
raided
because
the
cops
screwed
up.
And
there’s
no
“because
it
might
make
us
look
bad”
public
records
exception.
And
if
the
officers
“did
nothing
wrong,”
it’s
hard
to
believe
releasing
footage
of
such
outstanding
police
work
would
be
“dangerous.”
Unfortunately,
as
Indy
Week
points
out,
body
cam
footage
is
not
considered
a
public
record
under
North
Carolina
state
law.
That
doesn’t
mean
it
can never be
released.
It’s
that
the
presumption
of
opacity
prevails
unless
the
state
AG
or
a
presiding
judge
determines
otherwise.
Then
there’s
the
particulars
of
the
raid
itself.
It
wasn’t
a
no-knock
raid.
But
it
was
as
close
to
a
no-knock
warrant
as
warrants
get, with
so
little
difference
between
the
two
it
may
as
well
have
been
no-knock.
According
to
a
complaint
filed
on
December
7
in
Wake
County,
Raleigh
police
officers
“wrongfully
executed
a
‘Quick
Knock’
warrant
on
the
Abbouds’
home”—meaning
the
cops
knocked
and
kicked
in
the
door
before
the
Abbouds
had
time
to
answer—though
they
weren’t
suspected
of
criminal
activity.
The
police
“invaded
the
privacy
of
their
house
with
long
guns
drawn,
terrorizing
them
and
their
child,”
the
complaint
allege.
Knock-and-announce
is
already
a
misnomer,
as
it
suggests
officers
will
announce
their
presence
and
give
occupants
enough
time
to
answer
the
door
and
(possibly)
grant
officers’
access
to
the
house.
“Quick
knock”
is
some
imagined
liminal
space
between
knock-and-announce
and
no-knock,
where
officers
knock
once
while
shouting
“Police!”
and
immediately
attempt
a
forcible
entry.
I’m
sure
it
works
out
well
for
North
Carolina
law
enforcement.
It
means
they
don’t
have
to
meet
whatever
standards
are
in
place
for
a
no-knock
warrant
but
still
get
all
the
advantages
of
a
no-knock,
with
the
only
separation
being
the
fractions
of
a
second
needed
to
yell
the
word
“police”
once
to
satisfy
the
(lol)
constraints
of
a
“quick-knock”
warrant.
As
Radley
Balko
reported
last
year,
the
constraints
on
warrants
like
these
are
pretty
much
non-existent
in
North
Carolina.
Here’s
the
money
quote
from
University
of North
Carolina’s
Jeffrey
Welty’s
report on
warrant
requirements
in
the
state:
Among
the
conclusions
are:
(1)
there
is
no
explicit
authority
for
North
Carolina
judicial
officials
to
issue
no-knock
warrants;
(2)
judicial
officials
sometimes
issue
such
warrants
anyway;
(3)
no-knock
warrants
seem
to
be
very
rare;
(4)
when
an
application
for
a
no-knock
warrant
is
granted,
the
resulting
warrant
does
not
always
include
an
express
judicial
determination
regarding
the
need
for
a
no-knock
entry
or
an
express
judicial
authorization
of
such
an
entry;
and
(5)
quick-knock
entries,
where
officers
knock
and
announce
their
presence
and
then
immediately
force
entry,
may
be
widespread.
Unsurprisingly,
data
on
no-knock
and
quick-knock
warrants
is
hard
to
come
by.
Pretty
much
the
only
option
is
tracking
every
criminal
case
that
involves
a
warrant
and
that’s
something
that’s
difficult
to
scale,
not
just
in
terms
of
expense
(state
and
local
courts
tend
to
charge
even
more
exorbitant
per-page
fees
than
even
the
rightfully-reviled
PACER
system)
but
in
terms
of
practicality.
But
what
can
be
surmised
from
the
limited
data
is
that
“quick
knock”
warrants
are
a
handy
replacement
for
no-knock
warrants,
giving
officers
the
same
leeway
to
immediately
engage
in
a
forcible
entry
without
asking
them
to
satisfy
the
minimal
requirements
of
a
no-knock
warrant.
They’re
basically
the
same
thing.
The
only
difference
is
the
“announcement”
that
accompanies
the
sound
of
a
door
being
bashed
in.
It’s
all
amazingly
shitty
and
stupid.
And
now
there’s
this
added
to
it:
cops
arguing
(successfully!)
that
their
reputations
might
be
harmed
if
the
public
is
allowed
to
observe
their
actions
after
the
fact.
And,
for
now,
that’s
how
it
remains.
The
challenges
to
this
burial
of
apparently
embarrassing
footage
will
continue,
but
for
now,
cops
have
the
upper
hand.
The
mistakes
they
made
will
remain
under
the
cover
of
judicially-granted
opacity.
Cops
Claim
Body
Cam
Footage
Of
Wrong
Address
Raid
Would
Be
‘Dangerous’
To
Release
To
General
Public
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
Sextortion
Is
A
Real
&
Serious
Criminal
Issue;
Blaming
Section
230
For
It
Is
Not
Biden’s
New
Net
Neutrality
Rules
Don’t
Prevent
Anti-Competitive
“Fast
Lanes”
Senate
Now
Considering
Section
702
Re-Up
With
A
Dangerous
Amendment
Attached
To
It
