Cops Claim Body Cam Footage Of Wrong Address Raid Would Be ‘Dangerous’ To Release To General Public
from the but-the-raid-itself-increased-the-public's-safety? dept
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.
Filed Under: body cameras, footage, north carolina, raleigh, raleigh pd, search warrant, transparency
Comments on “Cops Claim Body Cam Footage Of Wrong Address Raid Would Be ‘Dangerous’ To Release To General Public”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hey!! Today’s installment of anti-police h@te speech! Love it!!
Re:
I didn’t read any “hate” in this posting, so the hate must be yours. I did read plenty of loathing for the excuses police provide for their bullying and stupidity. The Supreme Court created this special group that is excused from “ignorance of the law” and free to stomp all over our civil rights as long as there’s no precedential case that specifically prohibits that behavior. It doesn’t take long to equate “ignorance” and “policing,” but exposing this relationship isn’t hate; it’s just good journalism.
Re:
And there’s today’s brainless, context-ignoring troll post. Respond to any item of fact presented by the article, or explain why it’s good for cops to fuck up. If you can’t, then just stop posting.
Re:
Normally I would suggest someone with a tongue as black as yours to seek medical attention, but I realized it was just the leftovers from your daily police boot polish application.
Re:
Yes or no: Do you believe the police should be allowed to kill or injure anyone they wish, with no justification needed for their actions, without consequence?
Yes or no: Do you believe the police should be allowed to destroy or confiscate anyone’s private property, with no justification needed for their actions, without consqeuence?
Yes or no: Are you a fascist? (Please note that answering “yes” to the first two questions automatically qualifies as a “yes” to this question.)
Re: Re:
This is an AC who, if I deduce correctly, literally supports the idea of sending transgender people to death camps. What do you think?*
(*they’re probably actually just run-of-the-mill GOP, but same thing anymore, right?)
Re:
I wonder how you would feel if cops killed your family over a completely avoidable failure.
Re: Re:
If the AC is the same one who has previously spammed the “anti-cop hate speech” angle on any article that rightly seeks to hold cops accountable for unethical and illegal activities, it’s an old white man whose son is a cop. He probably can’t imagine the possibility that he’d be a victim of such a tragedy. He’s swallowed the blue line bullshit so thoroughly that he has no critical thinking skills left, much less any self-awareness.
Re: Re: Re:
His son is probably a bitch too.
Re: Re: Re:
If it’s the white supremacist known as davec, he’s admitted that he’d happily get shot becase he’d think he’d committed a crime.
Re:
Do you prefer the term badge bunny, copsucker, boot locker, or my personal favourite human holster?
Re:
Eat shit.
Re: Re:
You and your punk ass pig son.
Reputation
Isn’t “releasing this recording would damage our reputation” an admission of guilt?
I think you are being a little unfair here, Mike. I mean, they needed to restrain a while .000000003 seconds before breaking in the door. Not even close to a no knock warrant.
Re:
*Tim.
Re:
The battering ram makes a knocking sound right?
… which is how you get rulings like Bivens and others, where a home owner has to sue John Does because the officers refused to identify themselves. Gudanowski, Mckesson.
And how sometimes, if you only find the names late in the process, you can be denied.
you got something coming...
One of these days an officer will be shot dead while executing a no-knock and it will be no fault of the shooter.
Re:
The police department and their lawyers would do everything in their power to make it seem like it was.
Re:
Oh, it very much happens:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ogXsoItqa2qj82sH23cOYCGi-teAwS50P4m4o-EhMpQ/edit#gid=0
Re:
This is my favorite one:
https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/diamonds-ford-wants-to-move-with-her-life-after-attempted-murder-charges-dropped/77-22dbd5c1-f176-4c38-8933-fb0304054960
Her charges were dropped, not because the police or prosecution realized that she was defending herself….but because two of the officers involved were fucking criminals themselves and couldn’t be used as witnesses.
Re:
When I read about a cop killed in the line of duty, my first thought is “I wonder what they did to deserve that.”
Frankly, I can fully understand someone fearing for their life as soon as a cop approaches them. And we all know what that sort of fear gives a person license to do.
Re:
Cops did get shot at while executing a no knock warrant on the wrong house, and Breonna Taylor got murdered by them for it (also because her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, was in possession of a firearm while black).
You want to make for goddamn sure I never shut the fuck up about the cops kicking in my door, on accident?
Refuse to pay for the damage that was obviously unintended.
That’s the very best way to get me to never, ever, shut up, settled or do anything other than drag their asses into court, win or lose.
Any officer, department that fights releasing footage should be immediately removed and barred from ever being in law enforcement.
Hey police fuckers. Can I throw a brick at your face and not be held liable so long as I yell duck?
Re:
I didn’t see shit.
Either they did nothing wrong or it would damage their reputation, pick ONE
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.
Just imagine the response by police if the other side tried to use their own argument in court when defending themselves.
Defense attorney: Your Honor while I will of course continue to insist that my client did nothing wrong I strongly request that the video of my client be barred from being used in court or released as it would be damaging to their reputation should the jury and/or public be able to see what they did.
What the hell ever happened to waiting for a suspect to walk out of a house (or whatever), unsuspectingly going about their daily business, and grabbing them out in the open where there are no potentially hidden scary things they can reach for, and no babies that can leap out of the shadows from another room?
Re:
That only applies for the highest of the high white collar targets like Dread Pirate Roberts. Apparently if you’re just a normie Average Joe walking down the street all you get is a mouthful of tarmac and a knee on your lungs.
Re: Easy, if horrifying to explain
Waiting for someone to leave their house before arresting them isn’t nearly as fun and what’s the point of being a cop if you can’t bust into someone’s house guns drawn and shouting orders/firing rounds in order to show off how manly you are and/or get that juicy adrenaline fix?
“damage officers’ reputations”
And what about the damage being done by allowing them to try to cover up the fact “well trained professionals” couldn’t tell brown suspect apart, read the address on a warrant, destroyed an innocent families home & refuse to make the innocent victims whole again.
Re: 'One of those dogs is rabid. You won't tell me which. Therefore I will assume it's all of them.'
When departments pull stunts like this I can only assume that they’re operating under the idea of ‘if the public/press doesn’t know which specific officers are involved they can’t name and shame them’, missing out that if the public doesn’t know which specific officers are guilty the safest and most reasonable response at that point is to assume that all of them are.
Re: Re:
A rabid dog in a kennel results in a kennel full of rabid dogs.
A rotten apple in a barrel results in a barrel of rotten apples.
There are no good cops. There are corrupt cops and corrupted cops.
Joke’s on them, the damage was already long done. Funny how they had absolutely no issues with their reputations until there was a non-zero amount of the general public who might want to hold them slightly more accountable.
Does anyone seriously expect rednecks to tell one person of color from another? They’ll even TELL you that “they all look alike”.
When you call upon ignorant, racist thugs to enforce your rules, things of this nature are inevitable.
Re:
Yup. I know a number of black people and there are subtle but noticeable differences between them.
There’s some real basic logic these mfers don’t seem to understand. Supposedly release of the bodycam footage would “damage officers’ reputations”, IOW, expose shoddy law enforcement. And they claim the security camera footage was ‘redundant’… SO, what they’re openly admitting to is that the security camera footage is proof of really shoddy law enforcement.
Re:
No, they’re lying when they claim that the release would be redundant. No doubt, the bodycam footage is far more revealing and embarrassing.
It might be dangerous...
… to a few law enforcement careers.
(Wouldn’t that be nice?)