Officer Lied to Obtain Warrant in Fatal Shooting

By TChris, Section Misconduct
Posted on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:30:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The facts were bad enough when it seemed that Kathryn Johnston's death was the result of unnecessarily aggressive tactics in executing a search warrant. Now we learn that the warrant was based on lies. Will the officers involved be held accountable?

As TalkLeft reported here and here, Atlanta police officers broke down an elderly woman's door. The frightened woman fired a gun at the intruders, not realizing who they were. The police returned fire and killed Johnston.

The police obtained a warrant to search Johnston's property by claiming that a confidential informant had purchased drugs at her house. That assertion was a lie, invented by a police officer who otherwise had no probable cause to search. A second lie -- that the "dealer" resident had security cameras outside the house -- was used to justify the request for a no-knock warrant.

Lying under oath is perjury. The officer's crime led to the death of Kathryn Johnston. Will Georgia hold him accountable?

Here's the back story to this outrageous abuse of police power:

The shooting occurred on Nov. 21, after three members of the narcotics team arrested a suspected street marijuana dealer, Fabian Sheats, who said he could help the officers hook a bigger fish. Mr. Sheats pointed out Ms. Johnston’s house on Neal Street, near a high-crime area, saying a dealer there had a kilogram of cocaine. The officers, according to the reports of Mr. Junnier’s account, tried to get an informant to the house to make a drug buy. But when that effort hit a snag, a request for a search warrant was drawn up anyway.
The paper, signed by Officer J. R. Smith, one of the three officers who made the arrest, claimed that a buy had been made from a dealer named Sam, and that a “no-knock” warrant was needed because Sam had security cameras outside the house — another detail that was fabricated, according to the accounts of what Mr. Junnier told the F.B.I.

The police should know better than to believe information provided by an arrestee who has an incentive to say anything to save himself from prison. Yet police routinely suspend their disbelief of unsavory snitches if they think there's even a possibility of making another bust. When the police can't confirm the snitch's story, it's inexcusable to invent a lie to obtain search authority. And its worse than inexcusable to fabricate an excuse for a dangerous "no knock" warrant that endangers the lives of police officers and home occupants.

< Duke Lacrosse Case Update | Mass. Rescinds Immigration Enforcement Agreement >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Officer Lied to Obtain Warrant in Fatal Shooting | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Patrick (none / 0) (#1)
by Patrick on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:35:38 AM EST

If the officers lied, they should be tried and sent to prison for a very long time. The death penalty should be an option as well.

I must note however, that the source of the "They lied" information is anonymous. Give whatever weight you want to that. I see T-Chris uses declarative statements, so it's clear the weight he gives it.

If the anonymous source is correct, these officers are scum.

: Good to hear bro! (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 04:58:48 PM EST

Though I'd say no to the death penalty, if true.

Maybe I missed it, (none / 0) (#2)
by aw on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:40:45 AM EST

but didn't they even try to find out who actually lived in the house and maybe even a little bit about her? Maybe I'm too simple to understand how these things work, but it seems like the police could have asked a few questions first.

: 9/11 changed everything (none / 0) (#3)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 10:51:43 AM EST

As you'll recall:

"If you buy drugs, you might be helping drug dealers shoot little kids -- and you might be helping terrorists do things so awful that we cannot conceive of them yet."
This wasn't a drug raid; this was a matter of national security. Jack Bauer would have done the same. God bless everyone involved.

Uh (none / 0) (#5)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 11:06:04 AM EST

Yes, I imagine they will find attorneys willing to defend them.

: Sure, there will be plenty of lawyers willing (none / 0) (#6)
by Jen M on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:03:03 PM EST

why would these guys be any different than anyone else?

: they'll get lawyers (none / 0) (#15)
by rothmatisseko on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:18:51 PM EST

The city will probably pay for it, too - and not just for a PD. The city has an interest in avoiding a guilty verdict, which would be evidence in the inevitable civil trial for damages.

I thought is was perfectly clear all along... (none / 0) (#7)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:44:02 PM EST

...that the original story told was total B.S. and a fairy tale to placate the unknowledgeable and the masses of people who do not understand how these things work.

I'm NOT one of those, however, too shy to say, "I told you so!"

And boy! must these guys be prosecuted: committing perjury (a felony) to obtain a search warrant they knew was bogus, and Killed this poor woman while "acting under color of authority".

In California, and I believe most state, depriving a person of any right unlawfully while ostensibly acting "under color of law" is a very serious felony, and they certainly denied this woman her rights.

Being right (none / 0) (#8)
by Patrick on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 12:55:52 PM EST

Doesn't necessarily mean the way you arrived at the decision was wise.


Doesn't mean it was wrong or unwise either. (none / 0) (#9)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 01:00:39 PM EST

No kidding... (none / 0) (#11)
by Patrick on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:00:58 PM EST

: No, really. ;-) (none / 0) (#13)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:13:11 PM EST

It's federal (none / 0) (#19)
by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 07:35:24 PM EST

I am currently pursuing just such a complaint. I was pulled over for a "mistake of law," i.e. the officer thought I needed a sticker on my rear plate, but on my commercial vehicle it is required on the front. (In fact, it was a transparent attempt to find out who I am, since I had been observed in an area where most white people are scared to go. Busted for "driving while white.")

After finding out that he was mistaken and that there was no Vehicle Code violation, he still took my driver's license and ran a warrant check.

Unlawful detention under color of authority is only a misdemeanor in California. The big guns are federal:

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

United States Code Title 18, Section 242: "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall not be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life."


Gunnier (none / 0) (#10)
by atlanta lawyer on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 02:52:03 PM EST

Patrick,

The "Gunnier" mentioned, is one of the police officers who raided the home and was shot. The anonymous sources are saying that they lied, but that Gunnier has told the FBI that his fellow officers lied.

I admit... (none / 0) (#12)
by Patrick on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:06:40 PM EST

...I have no idea what a "Gunnier" is.

It's my understanding that the source claiming the cop admitted to lying is anonymous. I read somewhere that the source is likely a lawyer involved in the case. Either way, I think the likely scenario is the source is correct, but I'll wait to see that from someone other than the biased posters here. If you have a link to the statement of the officer I'll be glad to look at it and revise my position.

Otherwise, this blogger said it best..

I know that there will now be a pack of libertarians in the comments screaming that I was wrong and I owe an apology. I sense that it will infuriate them to know that I do not apologize for saying that we should wait for the facts before forming concrete opinions. If you form a firm and unswerving opinion before all the facts are in, sometimes your opinion will prove to have been wrong, and sometimes it will have been right. But the fact that your opinion was right doesn't prove the wisdom of leaping to unswerving opinions before the facts are in. By that logic, a man who risks his life savings on a spin of the roulette wheel and wins has necessarily done a wise thing. After all, he won, didn't he?

: The right-wing refrain (none / 0) (#20)
by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:33:20 PM EST

"Okay, so you were right - but for the wrong reasons!"
Why do I get the feeling that these guys accused everyone of cheating whenever they lost as kids, even in checkers?

How far does this unravel? (none / 0) (#14)
by libdevil on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:13:41 PM EST

At first, it seemed like an incredible abuse of police power, conducting a commando raid on an old grandmother, and killing her in the process. But she did open fire on these strange men barging into her house, so if they were there legally and pursuant to a warrant, they could return fire (no matter how morally repugnant their actions may have been).

If the warrant was obtained by perjury, does that make it invalid? If the warrant is invalid, does that make their entry into the house illegal? If the entry into the house was illegal (breaking and entering?), is the death of the woman now felony murder?

Or does it stop at the perjury charge? Or do they get away with it because they're cops?

Murder committed during the course of... (none / 0) (#16)
by Bill Arnett on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:27:02 PM EST

...a felonious act.

They will not receive immunity from their lies, which lead to the death of a woman defending her home.


To answer your questions (none / 0) (#17)
by Patrick on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 03:58:41 PM EST

If the warrant was obtained by perjury, does that make it invalid

Not only invalid, very likely criminal

If the warrant is invalid, does that make their entry into the house illegal?

Absolutely, but perhaps not criminal. See below.

is the death of the woman now felony murder?

That depends on who fired the shots. If the people who made the entry believed the warrant was valid, and truly did not know the affiant had lied to obtain the warrant, then they may have a defense. If the knew, F'em, they're quilty as sin.

Or do they get away with it because they're cops?

This is the loaded question. The answer is their status should and does make their crime worse in the eyes of many.


You have no grounds ... (none / 0) (#21)
by Sailor on Fri Jan 12, 2007 at 08:41:13 PM EST

...

To answer your questions

You excused these murderers from the start. You ignored all the reports; you insisted the cops were justified; you castigated any commenters who thought and wrote the cops were wrong.

You were wrong. We were correct. But, golly, we got there the wrong way. Sorry pat, you got there the wrong way.

You have a history of believing in cops no matter what they do. Kill an unarmed kid thru a door; justified. TASER people to death; justified. Shoot a baby when the cops knew a baby was in the father's arms; justified.

Your 'justification' is just another excuse to let your fellow cops murder people.


You sir (none / 0) (#22)
by Patrick on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 03:25:09 PM EST

Are a bald faced liar. I simply refer anyone interested to the linked threads related to this case, I can quote some of them if you'd like, you know thw ones where I say wait for the investigation. Yes I have faith that a proper investigation will weed out corrupt cops, you on the other hand are no better than any other racist...You just prejudge a group that is not federally protected. You are a pathetic whiner, and a liar. I have tried to have rational dicussions with you, but you are too blinded by your hatred.


Jeralyn (none / 0) (#23)
by Sailor on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:17:43 PM EST

Please delete patrick's comment for an egregious violation of the TL rules.


Like I said..a pathetic whiner (none / 0) (#24)
by Patrick on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 06:44:59 PM EST

It's a proper response your comment. If you can't take the heat, don't flame first. Whether or not TL deletes the comment doesn't make it any less accurate.


trust a cop ... (none / 0) (#26)
by Sailor on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 05:54:52 PM EST

... to break the rules and try to intimidate others.

They are lying, bullying thugs who defend their fellow thugs' behavior in the face of all logic and lacking all humanity.

It really puts those of us who try to live within societies' boundaries at a disadvantage.


My goodness, (none / 0) (#27)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:28:23 PM EST

Do you read the things you post? You're proving my point over and over again. You said...

You excused these murderers from the start.

No I didn't...I said,

I agree the case stinks, but so far all we have is a bunch of people who weren't there spouting opinions. I think it's wise to wait for the facts to come out via the investigation. You, like Sailor, apparently don't.

You said,

You ignored all the reports; you insisted the cops were justified;

I said no such thing, and I challenge you to find a link to one of my comments that proves otherwise. It should be very easy, just click on my name and review any of my comments you choose.

you castigated any commenters who thought and wrote the cops were wrong.

Again, All I did was say it was appropriate to wait for the facts...You think you've got them, and I think only a fool rushes to judgement.

Well as they say, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. You'll pardon me if I continue to err on the waiting tll the facts are in before believing what the press or anonymous sources report.

The rest of your comments are off topic, and since you seem to fancy yourself as the TL rules police, I won't bother to reply to them.

So, Mr Sailor, as anyone with a brain can clearly see, you've put words into my mouth then called me a liar and a thug. I think it's clear who the liar is in this case, and it isn't me.


you are an admitted liar ... (none / 0) (#31)
by Sailor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 04:13:20 PM EST

... so your cherrypicking specious arguments really don't hold water.

" All I did was say it was appropriate to wait for the facts"

Actually you didn't just say that. You said :

"I see no valid reason why the Department PIO would claim otherwise other than that he was mistaken. "

Once again, you say it was a mistake when it was obvious to any outside observer he was lying.

And here comes the standard suppression of speech, that only cops or dead victims are allowed to comment:

Have you ever taken part in or been the recipient of a dynamic entry? I'm thinking not, based on your comments, so you really aren't qualified to make that opinion.

Obviously if I'm a cop, I support militarized home invasion, if I'm the victim I'm dead or charged with a felony.

if you're getting your experience from watching TV shows like COPS

No, I refuse to watch those shows because they glorify cops committing crimes.

Are you his mouthpiece?

Gee, just more predjudice from a cop relying on old cop jargon for lawyers.

IRT to TASERS, killing unarmed victims while shooting thru doors, prosecuting cops who fire thru walls at children, you've supported the cops in all those cases. And except for a very small minority of cases that these events come to wide public exposure only cops investigate cops.

That's just wrong. It's the same as having criminals investigate criminals, and not to be re-redundant, having politicians investigate politicians.


Careful, (none / 0) (#32)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 08:14:35 PM EST

your character is showing. Nothing you linked to there disproves any of my comments. Unless of course you're arguing that the Atlanta PD's, Press information officer (PIO) was in on it from the beginning...Tinfoil hat anyone. I have this mental picture of a fat hairy guy in a whife beater T-shirt, frothing at the mouth while pounding his key-board, trying desparately to prove a point that he is completely off base on. You ought to calm down a little...You're a very angry person.


almost all cops lie to protect each other ... (none / 0) (#34)
by Sailor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 09:37:23 PM EST

... because cops, admittedly, see it as 'us against them.'

Well, the rest of us who aren't cops, aren't federally protected, don't have have fellow gang members in blue to shoot and lie for us might have a different opinion.

You ought to calm down a little...You're a very angry person.

yeah, and your 'brothers' should stop breaking into old women's houses and killing them.

Reasonable people are angry at that, cops just say 'wait until we investigate and clear ourselves.'


: Reasonable people (none / 0) (#36)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:33:36 PM EST

Reasonable people are angry at that, cops just say 'wait until we investigate and clear ourselves.'
Understand that there are bad apples in every group. Cops are not exempt. You just espouse hatred of an entire groupd based on the actions of a few. Putting yourself in the "reasonable people" category is a bit presumptuous on your part. Prejudice is a more accurate definition

BTW... (none / 0) (#33)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 08:18:50 PM EST

you are an admitted liar ...

Is it your contention that you've never lied? Because if that is what your are trying to say, you are in fact a liar. As if pointing out all your conflicting posts isn't enough. Welcome to the human race.


cops lie as a job ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Sailor on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 09:40:36 PM EST

... as you've admitted.

Give it up, we've already established what you are, now were just haggling over price.


: Nice job of (none / 0) (#37)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 10:34:31 PM EST

avoiding the question. Another definition comes to mind...Coward.

: Deafening silence.. (none / 0) (#38)
by Patrick on Tue Jan 16, 2007 at 10:03:31 AM EST

Cue the crickets....Come on Sailor, answer the question.

patrick (none / 0) (#25)
by cpinva on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:28:13 AM EST

i thought this thing didn't pass the "smell test" right from the start. but i also felt it fair to await the facts. turns out my old sniffer was right, as usual.

my sniffer has lots of law enforcement experience, at the federal level: i can tell almost instantly if something isn't right. then, i take the time to compile the facts. every so often, what appears wrong turns out to be right, but very rarely. i also have about a 95% sustention rate on appeal.

aw asked a valid question: what was so compelling, that some research couldn't have been done, before they went barreling into this house?

if it turns out that only one of the officers in question was responsible for this, i hope his fellow officers turn on him like rabid dogs, for unnecessarily putting his comrade's lives in danger. not to mention, making all of them (unfairly) look bad.

cpinva (none / 0) (#28)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:31:52 PM EST

what was so compelling, that some research couldn't have been done, before they went barreling into this house?

It seems a valid question on the face of it, but when dealing with cops who've gone this far over the line (Assuming the fact that the cops lied is true) then it sort of makes it a moot point. Wouldn't you agree?


Shouldn't it (none / 0) (#29)
by aw on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 02:53:21 PM EST

be a procedure, a mandatory one?

Before being granted a warrant, shouldn't they have to show that they've actually identified who lives there, if at all possible? Shouldn't people's lives be worth more than the possibility that some evidence might be destroyed?


: I think it already is... (none / 0) (#30)
by Patrick on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 03:26:03 PM EST

But an officer who is going to lie to get a warrant will probably ignore a procedure as well.