Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Thursday, December 28, 2017
This time of year is particularly hard for those like me who suffer from depression related conditions (e.g. SAD, Bi-Polar, Manic Depression). To those who know of what I speak, as the days grow shorter and everyone else is swept up in the holiday season, socializing and good cheer, all of this make people like myself turn extremely dark, cynical and morose. The fact that other people are enjoying themselves only makes it worse. Coming into work today I was handed one of the sloganeering cards that are handed out from time to time. I accepted it as usual with a nod and read it on the elevator ride up to my work station. "Gratitude changes everything" I read, yeah right, they ripped this one off from the great Ray Wylie Hubbard I thought to myself. Years ago, at the end of an incredible performance of Mother Blues on the Letterman show, Ray Wylie lets the audience in on the fact that the song he just performed was in fact a true, autobiographical tale, ending with the quote which is the title of this blog entry.
This just seemed to worsen what was already a bad day for me. As I began to take calls and chats as a things got better because I could focus on something other than myself and help others which is greatly comforting. As the morning progressed, my mood started to lift like the early morning light of dawn. By lunch time I was feeling a little better but not out of the woods by any means. It was only until I saw that the Boca Chica was serving my favorite meal today, their incredible deep fried tacos, that my mood turned the corner and I could reflect on that card I was handed without cynicism.
I am truly grateful for all my colleagues here at work; for the staff at our Cafeterias, the convenience store and the security desk who may not be aware of the difference they make in the lives of their fellow employees. I could never thank these people face to face but every once in a while I get an opportunity to express my gratitude and it truly makes an incredible difference. For instance over the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend I had been sick and did not get invited to a holiday dinner. Instead I worked that weekend and hearing of this, a good friend in the restaurant business decided to brighten my day by delivering a home cooked meal to me at work during my weekend shift. When my friend called to get directions and make sure I was here, I thanked him profusely and told him the only way his kind gift could be any cooler would be if he fixed up a second meal for the person manning the security desk. The only thing better than the taste of my friends home made meatloaf, real mashed potatoes, vegetables, roll, iced tea and pie was the look on the security guard's face when he learned that one of the meals was for him! Gratitude and giving. Try it sometime. It truly makes a difference!
Saturday, December 2, 2017
"Shame, Shame, Shame": What Jim "Gomer Pyle" Nabors would say to Senate Republicans if he were still alive.
Like a sick, perverse high school sophomore who is self-impressed by the whopping size of a single turd he left behind in the high school boy's room, the senior gangster from the not so Commonwealth (that's a good one) of Kentucky crowed "... this is just the beginning, after repaying the rich for years of legalized bribery..." the chinless turtle McConnell chirped, "...we will not rest until we have full restoration of the antebellum plantation system with the long term goal of turning the United States of America, which the party's first candidate for nationwide office, Abraham Lincoln, once called "...the last best hope on Earth...", into a feudal system with the American people serving as the permanent serf class to the Putin-Trump oligarchs.
As a public service to the Republican and Trump base and the Fox News audience here is what the GOP Tax Reform Act act of 1217 A.D. popularly known as "Taxes, Sodomy and the Lash" will really do to America:
Senator Michael Bennet, D. Colorado
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few minutes today of time on the floor, so I want to be relatively brief. I want to share with you a chart that shows what's actually happening as a result of this proposed tax bill.
Here's what's happening. There are 572,000 taxpayers. That's about half a million taxpayers in America that are fortunate enough to make more than $1 million a year. As a result of this proposed plan, they will receive $34 billion in tax cuts. They'll receive $34 billion in tax cuts this year, next year, the year after that. That's an average tax cut of roughly $59,000 a person. $34 billion going to 572,000 taxpayers.
What about the middle-class people that the republicans claim this bill is about? Well, there are 90 million taxpayers. Not half a million. 90 million taxpayers that make $50,000 or less. You know what they get under this bill, Mr. President? They don't get $34 billion. By the way, if you include that estate tax, that number is $39 billion, $40 billion. They get $14 billion. That's an average tax cut per taxpayer of $160 a year. And that's in 2019. That's the best year that these guys have.
After that it goes negative. $160 a taxpayer is equivalent to $7.50 a paycheck. I suppose in one year one could say there's a $7.50 tax cut a paycheck, that doesn't sound like a tax bill that's a middle-class tax bill to me. These are the tax cut levels under the republican plan. Also in 2019, this is the $59,000 number. If you're making between $40,000 and $50,000, you get there $492. If you're making between $10,000 and $20,000, you get $8 and so on and so forth. There is nothing about the tax cut proposal.
I was asked by somebody today how could these republicans go home and explain in the states that Donald Trump won, how could they explain that they voted -- that they didn't vote for this tax bill? When I was saying I think we still have a chance to defeat this tax bill. They said how can you say that? How can somebody go home? I can't wait to go home to rural counties in my state that voted 80% for Donald Trump, 75% for Donald Trump, and tell them that I voted against this tax bill. My only regret is I won't be able to tell them I voted against it twice. They're not stupid. People in Washington think that somehow by selling something based on percentages or selling something based on rates that people aren't going to understand what's actually happening to their after-tax income. My farmers and ranchers will understand that. They voted for a guy who said he was going to Washington to drain the swamp. They voted for a guy who said he was going to go to Washington and not help the rich people or the rich, as the president says. They voted for a guy who said that he was going to defend, support, fight for what he called the forgotten man. It turns out that when the rubber hits the road, we see the same movie that was happening before he got here, unless you want to argue that the forgotten man is making more than $1 million in an economy where people at the top earn more of that economy than they ever have, at least since 1928, if you want to make that argument, you can.
My farmers and ranchers won't believe you. They will not believe that argument. This is a disgraceful bait and switch. And wait till you have to tell them that in order to make that tax cut for the wealthiest people in America, you're going to borrow the money from their children. You're going to borrow the money from the children of people here to pay for the tax cuts at this end. You're going to borrow the money through teachers' children and police officers' children and firefighters' children. You're going to blow a $1.5 trillion to $2.5 trillion deficit. Today j.p. Morgan came out. J.P. Morgan came out and said this will result in the largest nonrecession deficit this country has ever had since world war ii. That's what J.P. Morgan said.
We do have problems in this economy. In Colorado, we've got problems because even though we've got one of the most dynamic economies in the country, middle-class families are still having a hard time paying for early childhood education. They're having a hard time paying for housing. They're having a hard time paying for higher education, which this bill makes even worse. They're having a hard time paying for health care, which this bill makes even worse. You can't even make it up.
They're taking health care away from 13 million Americans in a tax bill. And the congressional budget office tells us that because of the tax cuts they are producing here for the wealthiest Americans, there's going to be an automatic cut to Medicare of $25 billion in January. So I say let's go out to those 80% Trump counties and 70% Trump counties in Colorado and have a debate. They are not going to like what's in this plan. They will hate what's in this plan. It's the opposite of what they were told they were voting for. And so what I would implore my colleagues is, before I yield the floor, is that we stop this. Let's stop this bill. This bill doesn't deserve to be on the floor of the senate. It's a disgrace.
There was not a single hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, the finance committee, about this bill. Not one hearing about a bill that touches every recess of our economy. It touches every household in our economy. It's been 31 years since we did tax reform, and back then we did it right, in a bipartisan way. This time we don't even have the decency to have a single hearing so the American people can hear what's in this bill and make a judgment about whether it's a good bill or not a good bill. And I’m telling you, I know what they're going to say when they know what the details are.
We should stop this, and we should work in a bipartisan way. My colleague from Florida is here on the floor, and I know how important the child tax credit is to him. And my colleague from Utah. It's important to me too. That's the basis for a deal. I believe that the corporate rate is not competitive with the rest of the world. That's the basis for a deal. But borrowing money from middle-class taxpayers to finance $34 billion in tax cuts for 572,000 people is not a basis for a deal. And the American people are not going to be fooled by this. They're too smart for this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
As a native Minneapolitan who has never lived in any other city in Minnesota, nor wanted to, for the first time in my life I am envious of our neighbors to the East. It should come as no surprise to any long time reader ot the Great Roll Call that I wholeheartedly endorsed Mel Carter for Mayor of St. Paul and that was even before the racist smear campaign waged by the Police Federation that backfired so spectacularly and blew back in the face of the cops handpicked lackey, Pat Harris. In what was believed to be a tight race, Mr. Carter, a former St. Paul City Council member, absolutely trounced the benefactor of the St. Paul Police Federation's failed attempt to hijack the election by approximately a 2-1 margin in votes.
But Mel Carter's success cannot be attributed solely to the police union's stupidity, rather Mr. Carter is a principled man of substance who believes in investing in St. Paul, its infrastructure and people. Mel first came to my attention back in 2008 during the build up to the Republican National Convention which was held in St. Paul that summer. The city was inundated with cries for law and order and a debate arose over how to spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars of the public's money. The St. Paul Police Department wanted to blow it on more tasers. This caught my attention and I could not resist speaking out on the topic. I reprint below 3 of my posts from those times which include my interactions with then City Council member Carter.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Re: Agenda Item for Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Proposal for St. Paul Police Dept. to Purchase an Additional 230 Tasers
During these troubled economic times of recession and budget constraints, the St. Paul Police Department is asking the city for $210,000 to buy an additional 230 Tasers so every patrol officer in the city will have a stun gun. Tom Walsh, a spokesperson for the police department claims: "Using the Taser has allowed us to take people into custody without using deadly force, without using a degree of force that would cause a police officer to use a firearm or an additional force that would leave a person injured". "So we find them to be effective and probably safer for both the police officer and the person who's being arrested," Walsh said. (See MPR article of 2/18/08.)
At first blush, if Walsh's claims are in fact true, the logic sounds reasonable and $210,000 is a very small price to pay to save even one human life, be it an officer or a citizen they are attempting to subdue. Unfortunately, reality is never so simple and neat, especially when it comes to questions of expending the public's money on safety. Fear sells. The danger, however, is build it and they will come. Buy it and they will use it, too often and with disastrous, unintended consequences.
These devices, like Officer Walsh stated, are marketed as non-lethal alternatives to firearms. Had the marketing of these devices stopped there it would have been one thing, but as with the marketing exuberance that surrounds any product, uses for the products were promoted that far exceeded the concept of an absolute last chance alternative to the use of deadly force. Soon devices such as the Taser were promoted as a means of gaining quick, safe control over a situation that use to be done through verbal commands and calm and respectful reasoning. But the old ways didn't cost money and took time. Let's face it, low tech is boring.
In today's fast paced society, we have been conditioned to strive for efficient and economical methods of performing any task. We have all seen the controlled demonstrations of stun guns on t.v. where they would solicit a volunteer from the agency or organization they were marketing the product to and hit them one time with a jolt and the person is temporarily incapacitated, but recovers in a few minutes, no less for wear, or so it seems. Therefore the decision on behalf of law enforcement to escalate to the use of devices like the Taser is no big deal. Give every officer one of these devices and the risk of misuse multiplies.
The overwhelming anecdotal evidence is that when these devices are used on persons displaying erratic, agitated behavior, whether due to the influence of mood altering substances or organic mental illnesses, precisely the type of people the product is marketed for, the results have proved to be fatal in hundreds of cases.
Just last month, a Fridley man was on the way to pick up his parents at the airport, got into a fender bender and roadside confrontation. Although 5 state troopers responded to the accident scene and presumably, with that display of force, should have been able to control the situation. For reasons that remain unknown at this point due to an ongoing investigation, the troopers resorted to the use of a stun device and the man died.
Remember the news story from last year of the Polish immigrant who did not speak English and was lost at the Vancouver airport. He actions were viewed as suspicious and reported to the Canadian Mounties who immediately escalated to the use of the stun gun when they misconstrued his inability to communicate as resisting and the man died. Fortunately a passing tourist recorded the incident with a cell phone camera, which directly contradicted the Mounties version.
With a large immigrant population in St. Paul, do we really want to rely on the fortuity of passing citizens to keep law enforcement in line if every patrol officer has one of these devices?
Furthermore, once the industry learned of the mounting death toll as a result of the use of their device, did it act responsibly? Responsible as the tobacco industry. If you think I exaggerate, just see National Public Radio reporter Laura Sullivan's excellent two-part series from February 26 and 27, 2007 entitled
Death by Excited Delirium: Diagnosis or Cover-up? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386
Here is some food for thought from the attorney who established police takings liability in the state of Minnesota: you are opening the city up to potential liability that will make the expenditure of $210,000 look like pennies. Spend the money on training, mental health issues and more cops. It may be low tech and not very sexy, but at least you won't be raising taxes to pay millions in damages and attorney fees to people like me.
Posted by Plainsense at 9:34 AM
Thursday, February 21, 2008
“In a financial public hearing that turned into a referendum on the weapon, the St. Paul City Council gave the green light for the police department to spend $210,000 in seized drug money to buy 234 Tasers. That vote was 6-1, with Council Member Melvin Carter III voting against.
But moments before, a move intended to reroute the money and spend it on summer crime prevention programs failed 4-3. Council Member Lee Helgen authored the move, and Carter and Council Member Russ Stark backed it.”
Hopefully for their sake, St. Paul City Council members Bostrom, Harris, Lantry and Thune, won’t someday look back and regret the choice they made yesterday, either because some citizen lies dead due to the unnecessary use of a Taser by a member of the St. Paul Police Department or because one of the city’s young people got mixed up with drugs, gangs and/or crime because of a lack of summer youth programs. Sadly, it is not very likely because the type of person who would choose to spend more money on weapons for the police department over summer programs for the city’s disadvantaged youth are most likely the same caliber of cynics who never see the consequences of their own actions because they are too busy pointing their privileged fingers of blame at others.
I find it ironic but not unusual that it was the son of a cop and the only person of color on the council, Melvin Carter III, who represents Ward 1, that had the background, experience and wisdom to be the sole vote in opposition to the eventual decision to spend the people’s money on more Tasers for the police. But I must say, hats off to Council Member Helgen who authored the progressive plan and Council Members Stark and the aforementioned Carter, who supported the alternative to spend the $210,000 in drug forfeiture monies on something peaceful and constructive instead of perpetuating the violence and destructiveness from which the monies came.
Unfortunately, just like this country’s foreign policy, we would rather spend money on weapons systems than on programs which project our soft power and are often much more effective.
Posted by Plainsense at 7:56 AM
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:41:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Proposal to Purchase an Additional 230 Tasers
Thanks for the information... I will be voting against the
expenditure for tasers.
Council Member, Ward 1
City of Saint Paul
Posted by Plainsense at 7:42 AM
Friday, August 18, 2017
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
Drug overdoses continue to be the leading cause of death in Butler County. That's right Dick puff out that fat barrell chest of yours and show off your medals because you are a world class Dick, for sure.
Tenth Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero began his scathing opinion in Harte v. Board of Commissioners of County of Johnson, Kansas, --- F.3d ---- (2017) 2017 WL 3138494 with one of the most remarkable opening passages ever written by a Federal Circuit Court Judge:
“Law-abiding tea drinkers and gardeners beware: One visit to a garden store and
some loose tea leaves in your trash may subject you to an early-morning,
SWAT-style raid, complete with battering ram, bulletproof vests, and
assault rifles. Perhaps the officers will intentionally conduct the terrifying
raid while your children are home, and keep the entire family under armed
guard for two and a half hours while concerned residents of your quiet,
family-oriented neighborhood wonder what nefarious crime you have committed.
This is neither hyperbole nor metaphor—it is precisely what happened to the Harte
family in the case before us on appeal.”
In its per curiam decision but with each judge writing separately, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s granting of summary judgment and remanded the 1983 action and state law claims brought by the Harte family. For anyone out there who agrees with current Attorney General Jeff Sessions that good public policy is to double down on the failed War on Drugs this case is a frightening and tragic example of everything wrong with that approach and the real toll it has having on perfectly law abiding citizens.
Quoting again from Judge Lucero’s separate opinion, “The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Hartes’ home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt. The Fourth Amendment does not condone this conduct, and neither can I.”
The facts of this case literally read like the script for a segment on Saturday Night Live and would almost be funny if the actions of law enforcement were not so inept and despicable. The case stems from the actions of an overzealous Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant James Wingo and his “pet project” to make a major bust on a major indoor marijuana growing operation on April 20 or in police jargon 420, a date that supporters of legalizing marijuana have traditionally held celebrations nationwide. To achieve this end Sgt. Wingo had spent the better half of a year surveilling local indoor gardening stores taking detailed notes on everyone patronizing the store, from the license plate of their vehicles, the age and sex of the customers and the list of totally legal products they purchased. Unfortunately for Robert Harte, a stay at home dad, chose this time frame to start an educational project with his 13-year-old son and grow tomatoes and other vegetables in their basement.
A series of bad decisions, bad police work and downright illegal conduct by Wingo and his comedy troup the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office (“JCSO) culminated with “Operation Constant Gardener,” which was the publicity stunt that Judge Lucero referred to. From the questionable probable cause for the search warrant (based in part on supposed false positive test of tea leaves in the Harte’s garbage as marijuana), the over the top militarized execution of that warrant and the actions of law enforcement in prolonging the unsuccessful search warrant by more than 2 ½ hours wherein law enforcement illegally expanded the scope of the search to try and gather evidence of any kind of legality so they could save face, all the time holding the Harte family, including children at gunpoint, perhaps the most egregious part of this whole fiasco was that despite the raid on the Harte’s residence did not find any illegality let alone a major grow operation, the list of law enforcement missteps and bad judgment was long.
Again quoting Judge Luceros's opinion:
"When Reddin was informed that the two-and-a-half-hour, seven-man raid yielded nothing but tomato plants, he was furious. “You’re lying to me,” he said to Deputy Larry Shoop when Shoop reported the news, later writing “SON-OF-A-BITCH!!!” in an email to Lieutenant Pfannenstiel, who responded, “Nothing?????????????????????????” After learning that the drug raids were not going well, Sheriff Frank Denning attempted to cancel the pre-planned press conference. But notice of the conference had already been sent, so Denning reluctantly proceeded. The subsequent news coverage, which featured pre-recorded video footage of Denning and marijuana plants purportedly confiscated during the raids, suggested a successful operation across Johnson County, even though no live plants had been seized that day. Notably absent from the news reports was any mention of the law-abiding family wrongfully targeted for their indoor tomato garden."
The judges almost seemed apologetic that they had to affirm official immunity for some of the law enforcement agents in this Keystone Cops caper. For anyone who is concerned over the U.S. Attorney General’s agenda in reviving the War on Drugs and mass incarceration approach to law enforcement this case stands as a stark reminder to its futility and the real threat it poses to the constitutional rights of all American citizens.
Operation Constant Gardener sweep nets drugs, guns, stolen property
OLATHE, KS (KCTV) -
Several agencies across Kansas and Missouri took part in a sweep Friday, serving warrants and seizing marijuana as part of the second annual Operation Constant Gardener.
There are several stories on the significance of 4/20, April 20, in the marijuana counter-culture, but it has become a sort of unofficial holiday for the drug, and those who partake. Friday, several law enforcement agencies decided to celebrate too, with Operation Constant Gardner part two.
The campaign is an effort involving the Johnson and Cass County Sheriff's Offices, the Shawnee and Olathe Police Departments, as well as the Missouri Highway Patrol. Ten warrants on indoor growers were served and, so far, they netted 43 plants, one pound of processed marijuana, four guns, a stolen trailer and ATV, smoking and growing paraphernalia and $13,000 in cash. Additionally, officers also confiscated methamphetamines.
Johnson County Sheriff Frank Denning said the combination of marijuana and meth is becoming more prevalent.
"Marijuana is linked to these other crimes - you're seeing stolen weapons, you're seeing stolen property. We're seeing some other crimes that are associated with personal violence that occurs with it so marijuana may not be on everybody's radar but certainly from our crime lab's statistics, there's certainly a lot of it and it is illegal," he said.
Friday's operation is still ongoing so the confiscation numbers currently reported could go up.
Friday, August 4, 2017
While all very talented in their own right, the combination of John Sieger's songwriting, Paul Cebar's encyclopedic knowledge of and taste in music and its historical roots and Robyn Pluer's beautiful voice, was pure magic. Above everything else their music was joyous and fun. I spent a good part of that decade at their frequent shows at the Union Bar in Minneapolis and even drove to Milwaukee to catch one of their gigs after my brother developed a crush on Robyn.
But nothing that good ever seems to last and the band started to pull in different directions with John and his brother Mike eventually heading west to explore country tinged originals by John with his group Semi-Twang. Paul and Robyn stayed to form the Milwaukeans. I remember one particularly heated dust up at the Union Bar where it became apparent to me that the band's days were numbered. But time heals old wounds and now they were back and no worse for wear.
Friday, July 28, 2017
Well I'm goin' out west
Where the wind blows tall
'Cause Tony Franciosa
Used to date my ma
They got some money out there
They're giving it away
I'm gonna do what I want
And I'm gonna get paid
Do what I want
And I'm gonna get paid
Little brown sausages
Lying in the sand
I ain't no extra, baby
I'm a leading man
Well my parole officer
Will be proud of me
With my Olds 88
And the devil on a leash
My Olds 88
And the devil on a leash
Well I know karate, voodoo too
I'm gonna make myself available to you
I don't need no make up
I got real scars
I got hair on my chest
I look good without a shirt
Well I don't lose my composure
In a high speed chase
Well my friends think I'm ugly
I got a masculine face
I got some dragstrip courage
I can really drive a bed
I'm gonna change my name
To Hannibal or maybe
Change my name to Hannibal
Or may be just Rex
I'm gonna drive all night
Take some speed
I'm gonna wait for the sun
To shine down on me
I cut a hole in my roof
The shape of a heart
And I'm goin' out west
Where they'll appreciate me
Goin' out west
Goin' out west
Friday, June 16, 2017
Saturday, May 27, 2017
So sad to hear #GreggAllman passed. Here is my essay on him on that won a contest on #NoDepression: http://thegreatrollcall.blogspot.com/2015/08/gregg-allman-and-restorative-powers-of.html?spref=tw … …
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Militarized Search Warrant Unreasonable and Inevitable Discovery Exception Not Applicable to State Constitutional Law
The pushback continues. Add Indiana to the list of states where citizens are pushing back and courts are saying enough already with law enforcement's continued application of over the top military tactics and equipment in routine search warrant executions. Just last week in Watkins v. State, Ind.App.January 06, 2017--- N.E.3d ---- the Indiana Court of Appeals added its voice to the growing chorus or jurists who think law enforcement has lost its perspective on how much force is appropriate when conducting routine drug search warrants. For too long in this country law enforcement, flush with post-911 anti-terrorism money and programs where they can apply for used military equipment from the armed services, have been adopting the tactics and acquiring increasingly lethal implements of war. The problem then becomes they must justify the existence of the equipment with their use, on civilians, which is what they did in Watkins.
The facts in Watkins were that police officers used military-style assault tactics to execute a search warrant on defendant's home. The pre-raid surveillance failed to identify a nine month of baby in the residence despite baby seat and other child items in their line of sight. Although the police did announce their presence, 2 seconds before using battering ram on door and then tossing flash bang grenade into front room that contained only nine-month old baby in playpen.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held the manner in which the warrant was carried out was unreasonable under totality of circumstances, and thus violated the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, even though there was a considerable degree of suspicion based on information from confidential informant regarding drugs and gun in home; extent of law enforcement needs for military-style assault was low and degree of intrusion was unreasonably high, particularly in light of deployment of flash bang grenade very close to baby. However the mere recitation of the facts does not quite capture the flavor of the police officers mentality in the case. Perhaps the following exchanges from the trial transcript helps:
"...when asked if he recalled the criminal history of the occupants, he answered: “No I don't, I mean I think there was some sort of drug history and a violent act but I can't say for sure.” Id. at 51. He testified that he did not toss the flash bang into the residence but that “whoever is charged with ensuring that they deploy [a distraction] device is also charged with ensuring that they deploy it into a safe area” and that “you wouldn't want to throw it on any children, you wouldn't want to throw it if there was a meth lab, flammable's [sic], bond [sic] making materials, different things like that, so it is the job of the operator that's actually deploying the device to do the quick peek to check.” Id. at 63. He also acknowledged that the flash bang could catch a carpet on fire." Watkins at *4.
"Officer Taylor testified that he had been with SWAT for eight years and that before he deploys a flash bang and as the door is breached “there's a quick peek, a lot of things were [sic] looking for, people, kids, elderly, smells, and then it gets placed there at the threshold.” Id. at 66–67. When asked if he believed that he complied with the safety protocol, Officer Taylor testified: “Yes, even more so than our standards are.” Id. at 73. He also stated that the SWAT team carries a fire extinguisher." Emphasis added by this writer.
The state then argued that the evidence should still come in despite the unreasonable search in violation of the Indiana state constitution under the inevitable discovery doctrine.
The court wrote "...the inevitable discovery exception has not been adopted as a matter of Indiana constitutional law. Ammons v. State, 770 N.E.2d 927, 935 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “our state constitution mandates that the evidence found as a result of [an unconstitutional] search be suppressed.” Brown v. State, 653 N.E.2d 77, 80 (Ind.1995). See also Grier v. State, 868 N.E.2d 443, 445 (Ind.2007) (“Evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search must be suppressed.”). Despite the State's request, we are not inclined to adopt the inevitable discovery rule as part of Indiana constitutional law in light of the Indiana Supreme Court's firm language. See Gyamfi v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1131, 1138 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (declining to adopt the inevitable discovery rule as part of Indiana constitutional law in light of the Indiana Supreme Court's firm language in Brown ), reh'g denied; Ammons, 770 N.E.2d at 935." Watkins, Supra at *9.
Clearly there is a growing disconnect between the public's and law enforcement's views as to reasonable force and the judicial branch is using the general unreasonableness in the way a search warrant is executed as a check upon executive branch excess (i.e. excessive use of force by law enforcement).