The Over Reaching Tactics Of The Volusia County Sheriff Department
If The VCSO Is Off The Reservation Regarding Search And Seizure Laws,
Are They Complying With Excessive Use Of Force Laws?
Santora's defense attorney, James Crock argued that the VCSO SWAT team routinely breaks the “knock and announce” law which requires law enforcement officers to knock and announce that they are serving a search warrant.
The "knock and announce" law allows the police, with an active warrant, to force their way in, if the home’s occupant refuses to let them in. Further, the law gives the police the authority of immediate entry, if they believe the suspect may be destroying evidence, or may be armed and dangerous.
Crock insisted that the VCSO SWAT team was intentionally breaking the law, so that they could terrorize people in their own homes on a routine basis with no rationale explanation for their behavior.
Crock also questioned a VCSO SWAT commander on why the SWAT team was used to serve the search warrant at the Santora home.
The SWAT commander stated that SWAT personnel are used to serve search warrants only in high-risk situations, but the commander was unable to articulate any specific facts, that supported the existence of high risk situation in the serving of Santora's warrant.
Crock argued that a vague statement of officer safety should not justify the police's violation of the "knock and announce" law.
“Basically, they might as well say we need to break the law or ignore the law because we have general safety concerns by being police officers,” Crock said. “Anybody at any time could pull a gun on us so we should violate the law and do whatever we need to do to avoid that scenario.”
Crock referenced a 2001 opinion from the 2nd District Court of Appeal which reversed a trial court’s judge denial of a motion to suppress evidence, if reference to a similar early morning raid by the Bradenton Police Department.
The Killing Of Edward Miller
Justified Application Of Lethal Force, Or Another VCSO Over Reach?
Recently, VolusiaExposed was within the law, when he shot and killed Edward Miller on September 20, 2014.
VCSO internal records supported that Hernandez had a prior sustained history of using excessive force, as well a being involved in an unrelated January 2013 shooting incident, that took the life of Flagler County resident, Kenneth Morrow, 52.
Apparently, the Miller shooting incident is still being "investigated" by both the VCSO and FDLE.
However, we (VolusiaExposed) must openly question the following;
Assuming that Attorney Crock's courtroom arguments are correct, that the VCSO is routinely and intentionally breaking the search and seizure laws, is it reasonable to question whether they are routinely and intentionally breaking other laws?
In the Santora case, Deputy Ben Yisrael testified that the VCSO SWAT team only serves "high risk search warrants" - but upon further questioning by Crock, Deputy Yisrael could not supply specific facts to support that the Santora warrant was a high risk incident.
Absent an explanation that the Santora incident was high risk, it is unreasonable for us to question why the VCSO used the SWAT team to serve the warrant. Was it to poison a criminal jury against Santora, by making him unfairly appear to be such an armed and dangerous suspect, that the SWAT team was needed to take him down?
Maybe, this provides some insight in the VCSO shooting death of Edward Miller. Sheriff Ben Johnson stated that Miller brandished a fire arm at his civilian clothed deputy.
Okay, let's assume for a moment that Mr. Miller did brandish a fire arm. Is it really that surprising that Miller, who maintained a concealed weapon permit, would brandish a fire arm at Hernandez? Isn't that the whole point of carrying a concealed weapon - so that if an aggressive person, while dressed in civilian clothes, and brandishing a gun approaches you, that you are able to defend yourself?
Our Review Of Judge Margaret Hudson
Congratulations - it's our opinion that Judge Hudson probably made the correct decision in the Santora matter.
We base this opinion, on the fact, that case law out of the 2nd District Court Of Appeals clearly supported Attorney Crock's motion to suppress.
Therefore, the law was clearly defined, and no judge enjoys being over turned on appeal.
Sorry guys (VCSO), the Santora incident was pretty much a black and white situation, no gray area or wiggle room there for Hudson to maneuver with.
We (VolusiaExposed) still pose the question of why it appears that Judge Hudson is assigned to many of the hard cases coming out of the VCSO. Is it just our imagination playing tricks on us?
"Police throughout the United States have been caught fabricating, planting, and manipulating evidence to obtain convictions where cases would otherwise be very weak. Some authorities regard police perjury as so rampant that it can be considered a "subcultural norm rather than an individual aberration" of police officers."
