Along similar lines to Law and the Long War:

Quote:

---

RALEIGH, North Carolina (CNN) -- A woman whose husband and two sons are accused of plotting "violent jihad" overseas said federal authorities tricked her into leaving her home so they could search it.

Sabrina Boyd said Tuesday that she rushed out to a hospital earlier this week after being told her loved ones had been in a serious car accident

"When we got to the hospital they brought us around back, separated us, handcuffed us, including my 8-month pregnant daughter[-in-law], and were very rude and then told us, 'They're not dying, they're detained. And you better cooperate with us.'"

She added, "They used the death of my son to trick me into getting out of my own house so they could just serve a warrant with nobody there."

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/29/...rss_topstories

Keep in mind, there's always more to the story than what the article says. I doubt it happened exactly as reported.

But let's say it did for argument's sake. I'm not offended but I don't understand why it was necessary (again, assuming it's true as reported).

There's no advantage that I can see to having her out of the house while serving a search warrant. You have to file a return with the issuing court documenting any items siezed. Anything taken is discoverable, even if she wasn't there to see it taken.

It could have to do with the type of evidence. Perhaps it was very easy to quickly destroy and this ensured that she did not know to destroy it until it was too late.

This kind of reminds me of those police operations where they tell a bunch of criminals that they've won a free TV and to come pick it up at such-and-such location. Then, when the wanted perps are in the room, ready to sign the paperwork, in walk the police, informing them that they do not have a right to a TV, but rather a right to remain silent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There's no advantage that I can see to having her out of the house while serving a search warrant. You have to file a return with the issuing court documenting any items siezed. Anything taken is discoverable, even if she wasn't there to see it taken.

---

At the time maybe they just wanted to collect Intell as opposed to straight prosecution. That type of capability was one of the supposed benefits of the Patriot Act that Law Enforcement wanted in order to have just such a capability if needed? Then again.....sometime stuff just gets messed up;)

I'm not much concerned about this, as Slap indicates, we are getting only one side and the Feds are not stupid, well, not all the time anyway. Back in the Civil Rights Movement days, the Feds went, shall we say, whole hog, when it came to busting up the hold the KKK had over people and it got pretty rough at times. Well done, these nuts may have changed their mind and opened up here in the states.

which was fine; and went to Astan to fight the Soviets, which was fine. See Wash Post article.

The indictment alleges that, after that, what he did was not so fine. See FBI Press Release.

Agree that there is some missing context here, but it still strikes me as a smart move. "Federal Agents Storm Suburban Home, Handcuff & Detain Pregnant Woman" would have been the headline if the feds had rolled into the subdivision & brought out a pregnant woman in a burka and flex cuffs. There were some "why didn't you arrest him in town" questions about David Koresh after Waco. Not that this would have gone wrong to that level, but there's always the potential for another Elian Gonzalez PR disaster. Nobody cares if you're right if the image is wrong.