A 21 year old man is dead today. The facts presented by the family and eyewitnesses should be disturbing to all of us. Are we secure in our homes? Under what circumstances does government have the authority to conduct armed raids?
I found an ABC News report about a Silver Spring, MD man who was shot and killed by police early in the morning of Thursday, March 12, 2020. The Montgomery County Police Department sent a tactical unit to serve a “high-risk” search warrant on a Mr. Duncan Lemp at 4:30 AM that morning. As is often the case, there were two sides to what happened next.
The Police
The police obtained a warrant to search Mr. Lemp’s home, which he shared with his parents and brother, based on a complaint from the public. The complaint was that Mr. Lemp, although prohibited, was in possession of firearms. The warrant did not mention any imminent threat to law enforcement or the public. According to a news release from the Police Department, Mr. Lemp “confronted” and was shot by police. Following the shooting, police detectives did find three rifles and two handguns in the home.
The police department’s news release stated that the “facts and circumstances of the encounter” are still under investigation. It also stated that the case will be reviewed by neighboring Howard County prosecutors, under a pre-existing agreement about officer-involved shootings.
The Family
According to the family, through their lawyer, Mr. Lemp was killed while he was asleep in his bedroom, and his girlfriend was wounded. The lawyer also stated that an eyewitness gave an account of the shooting “completely contrary” to the police reports. The lawyer for the family said they believed the police fired gunshots, not flash-bang or other less than lethal projectiles, from outside the house. The family claims the police fired through the window of Mr. Lemp’s bedroom, where he was sleeping with his girlfriend. No one in the house heard any warnings or commands from the police before they opened fire.
What I Would Like to Know
This case brings up a lot of constitutional questions for me.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV
First, was the probable cause for the warrant supported by oath or affirmation? If a witness informs police that a “prohibited possessor” is in possession of firearms, that is probable cause to search. However, a warrant can only be issued if that cause is supported by oath or affirmation. The report does not detail who reported Mr. Lemp to the police. I don’t see that as a problem, as long as that person is identified in the warrant application and made available to the family’s lawyer.
That brings up my second question. According to the family lawyer, no one in the house had a criminal record, so why was Mr. Lemp prohibited from possessing a firearm? Could he be the victim of another unconstitutional and illegal law infringing on his right to keep and bear arms? Was that unconstitutional law used as an excuse to issue the warrant used by police to raid his home?
And while we’re at it, who requested this warrant be declared high-risk and what was their justification? If no one in the home has a criminal record, what made this search high-risk? The news report states that social media accounts they believed belonged to Mr. Lemp visited sites frequented by “militia members and other extremists”. Was Mr. Lemp’s freedom of association used to justify the ferocity of the search? And who determined that these groups were “dangerous” for ABC News? Yes, it was the “Anti-Defamation League”, a group known to advocate for “gun control” legislation and warnings about “anti-govenment extremist” groups. Could it be that the police were set up to overreact to this warrant?
And lastly, what was the imminent threat that justified the use of lethal force by the police? A “high-risk” warrant does not give the police the legal authority to shoot first and ask questions later. A truly “high-risk” warrant may justify the use of force to enter and subdue. It may even justify serving the warrant in the middle of the night. But it does not relieve law enforcement of the requirement that there be an imminent threat of death or serious injury to themselves or an innocent bystander before they can use lethal force. If someone breaks into your house without announcing themselves, they should not be surprised to be “confronted” by an armed response. And if the witnesses are correct, and the police fired live rounds from outside the house while the people inside were asleep, then this looks less like a case of an over-reacting police force and more like an assassination.
Conclusion
This story, whatever the final circumstances, warrants concerns from the public and demands a review of the laws and procedures used. I see many questions that need to be answered:
- Was a warrant issued without a supporting oath or affirmation?
- Was the cause for the warrant (illegal possession of a firearm) even valid?
- Was Mr. Lemp targeted, either by a private individual or group, because of his opinions or political interests?
- What actual justification did the judge and police have for so flagrantly endangering not only the person of interest, but the others in the house as well?
Nothing will bring Duncan Lemp back to his family. I doubt they will ever feel safe in their home again, or trust law-enforcement to use reasonable force in a future encounter. In short, one life was taken and at least four more have been permanently harmed by the actions of the “legal system” in Montgomery County, MD. Will the people of that county, and the state of Maryland, require a full, fair, and impartial investigation of the event? Will they demand those who acted outside the law, including the constitutions of both Maryland and the United States, be held accountable? Will they look not just at Mr. Lemp and the police, but at the accuser and the judge as well? Most importantly, will they gather around the Lemp family and help them however they can?
Will Americans stand up to what appears to be lethally bad actions by their government, investigating and punishing the actual criminals? Or will we simply pound our keyboards in frustration until the next egregious event pops up on the news?
The questions asked and points raised in this case are excellent. We should never forget that Title 18 Section 242, meant to prevent abuse of our Constitutionally protected rights is one of those laws that are conveniently not enforced (along with 18 USC 241). Problem is, these laws call into question enforcement actions of unconstitutional laws or any law whose constitutionality is in question. Meaning every BATFE firearms agent is potentially a felon. When you put all the various Supreme Court arguments together, it becomes clear that while the Supreme Court does not care to come out and declare a number of laws unconstitutional, that they in fact are unconstitutional, starting with the NFA of 1934. This is a tax act designed to chill the sales of guns that fall into various categories based on capricious, arbitrary definitions, like short barrel rifle, short barrel shotgun and any other weapon, but which fall into the 2d Amendment category of an arm nonetheless, and so protected. Likewise, the GCA of 1986 and it’s arbitrary decision to make another entire category of arms prohibited to all but the wealthy elite, and denying those protections to citizens who most need the protections. Our Constitutionally protected rights haven’t been protected in nearly a century and are whittled away at continuously. Duncan Lemp is far from the first murder by felons disguised as law enforcement officers. Last year it was Gary Willis in MD, before that it was LaVoy Finnicum. Let us not forget what Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge were all about. But these crimes will never be answered and the “investigations” were coverups to protect the government. Let’s hope Duncan’s murder is the last straw, or you or I or someone we love may very well be next.
Very good points. Since the supreme law of the land is regularly ignored, we should not be surprised when other laws are as well. Which is why our founders setup checks and balances, not just between the branches of the federal government, but between that government and the states.