I'm not sure which part I consider more outrageous: <\/p>\n
(a) That a SWAT team broke in and terrorized this family for hours based on their having bought a hydroponics kit (for tomatoes, as it turned out) and had tea leaves in their trash that a quick drug test (one known to produce lots of false positives) came up positive with for THC, and therefore happened to be tagged as one of the places to be raided on a publicity-seeking "4\/20" police action.<\/p>\n
'In April 2012, a Kansas SWAT team raided the home of Robert and Addie Harte, their 7-year-old daughter and their 13-year-old son. The couple, both former CIA analysts, awoke to pounding at the door. When Robert Harte answered, SWAT agents flooded the home. He was told to lie on the floor. When Addie Harte came out to see what was going on, she saw her husband on his stomach as SWAT cop stood over him with a gun. The family was then held at gunpoint for more than two hours while the police searched their home. Though they claimed to be looking for evidence of a major marijuana growing operation, they later stated that they knew within about 20 minutes that they wouldn’t find any such operation. So they switched to search for evidence of “personal use.” They found no evidence of any criminal activity.'<\/i><\/p>\n
(b) That a judge felt, after the fact, that this provided probable cause for the SWAT raid.<\/p>\n
'Last week, U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum dismissed every one of the Hartes’s claims. Lungstrum found that sending a SWAT team into a home first thing in the morning based on no more than a positive field test and spotting a suspect at a gardening store was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. He found that the police had probable cause for the search, and that the way the search was conducted did not constitute excessive force. He found that the Hartes had not been defamed by the raid or by the publicity surrounding it. He also ruled that the police were under no obligation to know that drug testing field kits are inaccurate, nor were they obligated to wait for the more accurate lab tests before conducting the SWAT raid.'<\/i><\/p>\n
(c) That it took so much effort on the part of the family in question (who were lucky enough to have the resources to expend on it) to even find out what the basis for the raid was.<\/p>\n
'Once they had been cleared of any wrongdoing, the Hartes wanted to know what happened. Why had they been raided? What possible probable cause could the police have had for sending a SWAT team into their home first thing in the morning? But even that information would prove difficult to obtain. Under Kansas law, the sheriff’s department wasn’t obligated to turn over any information related to the raid — not to the Hartes, not to the media, not to anyone. The couple eventually had to hire an attorney to get a judge to order the sheriff to release the information. They spent more than $25,000 in legal fees just to learn why the sheriff had sent a SWAT team into their home. Once they finally had that information, the Hartes filed a lawsuit.'<\/i><\/p>\n
(d) That such a raid took place based on the idea that someone was raising marijuana plants.<\/p>\n
'More than half a year later, the Johnson County Sheriff’s Department began investigating the Hartes as part of “Operation Constant Gardener,” basically a PR stunt in which the agency conducts multiple pot raids on April 20, or “4\/20.” On several occasions, the Sheriff’s Department sent deputies out to sort through the family’s garbage. (The police don’t need a warrant to sift through your trash.) The deputies repeatedly found “saturated plant material” that they thought could possibly be marijuana. On two occasions, a drug testing field kit inexplicably indicated the presence of THC, the active drug in marijuana. It was on the basis of those tests and Harte’s patronage of a gardening store that the police obtained the warrant for the SWAT raid.'<\/i><\/p>\n
If this can happen to this family (who, remarkably, were white, well-off, and former CIA analysts), it can happen to anyone[1]. You can buy something at the store that the police take note of because it's also used by drug manufacturers. You can have your garbage searched and tested using tests known to produce false positives. Anyone reading this, no matter how comfortable, no matter how innocent, can have their front door kicked in, be held at gunpoint for hours (you, your kids, your hopefully-well-behaved-or-they'll-be-shot dog) while your house is ransacked looking for a pot growing operation and, quickly failing to find same, ransacked looking for personal drug use, and then be left behind to pick up the physical and emotional pieces, no apologies, no reasons given, it's all part of the War on Drugs, ma'am.<\/p>\n
Tell me again why we're fighting that particular war? Because, yeah, use of illegal drugs[2] can wreck lives, but so can PR-seeking police shenanigans like this.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
[1] Though the odds are lower in a state like Colorado, that has legalized recreational marijuana, it could still happen through federal law enforcement should the Justice Department fall under control of an individual who felt that federal law should trump state law on this matter.<\/p>\n
[2] But, again, this was about marijuana,<\/i> not someone brewing meth or heroin. Though even if that were the case, the lack of rigor (and privacy breaches) of establishing "probable cause" in this case would still be outrageous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n View on Google+<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n
\n<\/a>
\nFederal judge: Drinking tea, shopping at a gardening store is probable cause for a SWAT raid on your home<\/a><\/span>
\nRobert and Addie Harte had to spend $25,000 to find out why a SWAT team mistakenly raided their home.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
