Here's an interesting decision handed down by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.  It's a reversal of a guilty verdict against a man who shot a Milwaukee police officer.  Badger Blogger has the original link to the opinion, and includes a fairly restrained commentary.

The case is against Tony Payano, who shot a Milwaukee Police officer during a no-knock raid in 2006.  A confidential informant reported to police that he saw Payano packing cocaine at the kitchen table and that there was also a gun present.  The next day, several officers executed a no-knock warrant.  During the warrant execution, Payano's cousin ran into the house and according to the Proof and Hearsay blog:

Payano said a cousin ran into the apartment the next day saying “it’s not me” but little else. A short time later, someone was attempting to break down the front door. Payano said he retrieved a handgun and fired one shot because he wanted to protect himself, his mother and his cousin. The shot struck Police Officer Michael Lutz in the arm. Payano was charged with reckless endangerment with a gun but was not charged with any drug violations.

The first trial resulted in a hung jury, but the informant never testified.  The second trial resulted in a guilty verdict, but the informant was allowed to testify over the defense objection.  The appellate ruling itself seems to revolve mostly around prior case law regarding evidence that is prejudicial to defendants, and found non-reversible error in the trial courts decision to include the evidence.

I'm not going to delve into the legal details here because I'm not sure there is enough information at hand to make a lot of solid comments, but I do want to point out several things here.  According to the background presented, the confidential informant made observations of drugs and a gun, and reported them to the police.  That is all it took to get a violent and volatile no-knock raid approved.  I emphasize that very clearly because that is a dangerous idea.

There was no controlled drug buy which took place.  In fact, Payano was never charged with a drug related crime, which would leave me to believe that the no-knock raid resulted in no drugs being found on the premises.  If this person was in fact a drug dealer, you'd think that there would have been some evidence of drugs in the house.  Without full court transcripts, its obviously impossible to tell for sure here, but this is troubling if true.

Confidential informants are hardly reliable sources.  They are criminals who have made deals with the police in exchange for leniency on previous charges.  In fact, these deals are usually structured in such a way that they have to continue to provide information or they will lose their preferential treatment.  They have every incentive to lie, or exaggerate what they find in an effort to save their own asses.  The fact that a violent and volatile no-knock raid was initiated in this case, solely on the basis of a shady confidential informant, is downright scary.

Of course I've tried to argue that no-knock raids are generally dangerous and misused anyway in the past.  Most SWAT teams are created (at least according to press releases) to go after gunmen who are holding people hostage, or against extremely violent individuals.  But they are frequently used in these much less dangerous circumstances as well.  In fact, according to the background in this case, the no-knock warrant was secured not because a gun was present, but rather because the police simply feared that evidence would be destroyed.

And of course, when the police talk about why they use no-knock raids (especially in the middle of the night), they talk about how they are meant to purposefully confuse and disorient the suspect.  But in this case, they are now saying that the defendant was supposed to do everything exactly right, and know who was coming through the door.  You can't have it both ways.  Either defendants are supposed to be capable of analyzing the situation and act rationally, or they can be disoriented and confused.

Now that's not to say that I fault the officers involved for their actions.  They were simply following the policies and procedures in place, and certainly, you never want to see an officer injured in the line of duty.  The problem isn't the officers involved, but rather poor policies that put them, and the civilian population, in unnecessary danger.