The FBI’s Use of No Knock Warrants a Hazard to the 4th Amendment?

Comment by Jim Campbell

August 1st, 2016

Excessive use of “No Knock” warrants are an abuse of the 4th Amendment.

The FBI will continue to play their game until more Federal Judges invalidate them.

 

 

With today’s FBI and target of one of their investigation can lose their constitutional right.

Paul Manafort pleads not guilty to tax evasion and fraud charges in federal court in Virginia. (Source)

Which of course means absolutely nothing!

 

The Washington Times

by Melissa Quinn

August 01, 2018

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The FBI on Wednesday described the details of the early-morning raid on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s Alexandria condo on the second day of Manafort’s trial.

FBI special agent Matthew Mikuska testified in court in Alexandria, Va., saying he was the seizing agent for the government’s search last year.

Mikuska told the jury agents knocked three times on Manafort’s door, but used a key to gain access after receiving no answer. Once inside, agents saw Manafort.

Evidence gathered by Agent Mikuska was not gathered using a “No Knock Warrant.”

Their warrant to search the apartment, Mikuska said, was not a “no-knock” warrant.

Mikuska described the apartment as “luxury” and spanning more than 2,000 square feet, with three bedrooms, an office, and large closet spaces.

Uzo Asonye of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia questioned Mikuska about the trove of documents they seized during the search.

 

 

Documents the government obtained include loan agreements, loan applications, and invoices for work on several properties along the East Coast that Manafort owns.

One draft invoice was for $115,000 in upgrades for a property in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., while another was for $49,000 from a home improvement company for work to be done on a house in Bridgehampton, N.Y.

Judge T. S. Ellis III challenged prosecutors over how the draft invoices and documents tied to the charges against Manafort.

At the start of the second day of Manafort’s trial, Ellis also took issue with the use of the term “oligarch” to describe the various Ukrainians who paid Manafort for his work there.

Ellis said the term is typically used to describe members of despotic regimes. But under the prosecution and defense’s use of the term in court, Ellis said George Soros and Charles Koch would both be described as oligarchs – people who have a lot of money.

Ellis urged lawyers for both sides to avoid using the term and instead told them to say “he financed it.”

Manafort faces 18 counts of tax and bank fraud.

His trial started Tuesday and is the first stemming from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

 

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. This site covers politics with a fiscally conservative, deplores Sharia driven Islam, and uses lots of humor to spiceup your day. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else. Please subscribe at the top right and pass this along to your friends, Thank's I'm J.C. and I run the circus
This entry was posted in The FBI's Use of No Knock Warrants a Hazard to the 4th Amendment? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The FBI’s Use of No Knock Warrants a Hazard to the 4th Amendment?

  1. Rule of Law says:

    There are numerous problems with this entire “witch hunt” by the Special Counsel.

    The Rule of Law would go first to the entire basis for the search and seizure of Manafort’s books and records. The Burden of Proof falls on the Special Prosecutor.

    The Rules of Civil Procedure would be the standard for this entire search warrant.

    Then we have the dates to consider. If these transactions were outside the prescribed time frame then this entire trial needs to stop because it has no basis in law. The Judge, based on publish reports, appears to understand this fact.

    Of course, the Special Prosecutor must establish the tie-in to the Russian investigation as to Russian involvement in the 2016 election campaign on behalf of Trump. Time periods outside this time frame are not allowed under the Guidelines published as to the defined role of the Special Prosecutor.

    IMO = Mueller and his democratic team do not get the luxury of defining what the guidelines of their job is!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.