U.S. Court Upholds Battering Ram Limits

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a court order that sharply limits the use of the controversial motorized battering ram in drug raids conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Also left standing was a difference of opinion between the LAPD and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In January, a divided California Supreme Court ruled that Los Angeles police officials must obtain approval of a magistrate before using the armed vehicle to break down doors, a practice aimed primarily at suspected “rock houses” where cocaine is sold.

Justice Stanley Mosk, writing for the California court, called the battering ram “an inherently dangerous” device and said that a decision on its use should be put in the “hands of a neutral and independent judicial officer.” Requiring the police to get approval before its use puts only a “minimal burden” on law enforcement officials, he said.

Interference Alleged

Los Angeles city attorneys disagreed and appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that such a restraint interfered with the ability of the police to move quickly in a dangerous situation.

“Restricting law enforcement to that equipment approved (in advance) by a magistrate . . . is cumbersome, impractical and unreasonable,” Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn said in papers filed with the high court.

But, without comment, the justices rejected the appeal and let the state court ruling stand.

“We’re not surprised,” said ACLU attorney Joan Howarth, who filed the lawsuit to stop use of the ram, “but we’re very pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the state Supreme Court that the LAPD had gone too far with its use of the battering ram.”

Los Angeles police, however, were openly disappointed. Department spokesman Lt. Dan Cooke said Chief Daryl Gates believes that judges should not be burdened with deciding when and where to use the ram “because they are not the experts in the use of police equipment.”

‘Extremely Careful’

Los Angeles police have been “extremely careful” in the use of the device and it is has been directly responsible for the virtual disappearance of heavily fortified rock houses, Cooke said.

Cooke quoted Gates as saying that the ACLU “has never done anything to help get rid of rock houses and has done nothing whatsoever to end the problem of drugs in our city.”

Howarth responded to that by saying: “The job of the ACLU is to keep basic constitutional principles alive in Los Angeles. This case is important because the ACLU, the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court are reminding the LAPD that the Constitution does not allow them to treat our neighborhoods like an occupied war zone.”

Deputy City Atty. Jack L. Brown, who represented the LAPD in the case, said he had not received the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and “can’t comment at this point.”

The LAPD has not used the battering ram against a rock house since April, 1985, although Cooke said it was used in June at a South-Central Los Angeles-area house in which a man was barricaded.

Not Needed Any More

Early last year, a high-ranking LAPD narcotics officer said the battering ram was not needed any more because it had “gotten the message across” to drug dealers. “The truth of the matter is,” he said, “the sucker has worked.”

But the case (Daryl Gates vs. Dolores Langford, 86-1932) has not proved to be a total loss for city police. The state court, while putting limits on the battering ram, refused to do the same with so-called “flashbangs,” small explosive devices used by police to surprise and stun suspects during raids on drug houses. Unlike the battering ram, the “flashbangs (do not) pose a significant and unusual threat to property and public safety,” Mosk said in his ruling.

The ruling limiting use of the battering ram was issued in the final days of the liberal state court under then-Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird. In a concurring opinion, Bird said she would have gone further and issued a total ban on the use of the battering ram.

Sharp Dissent

New Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas issued a sharp dissent. The war on drugs is difficult and dangerous for police, he said.

“In my view, the courts should neither interfere with, nor restrain the use of, particular law enforcement methods or techniques which play a legitimate role in fighting crime so long as no unreasonable risk of danger to human life is involved,” Lucas said.

David G. Savage reported from Washington and Jack Jones reported from Los Angeles.