Warning

Contents of this blog's images may be deemed 

offensive and disturbing to readers.

On or about January 16th, 2017, RCC filed an open records request into the City of Racine Police Department.

RCC received approximately 42 pages of documents and 77 pictures on a disc. Included in the documents was a 4 page "in house" Weapons Discharge Review.

The public records request focused on the actions of police during a no-knock search warrant executed in the 2000 block of Kearney Avenue in the city of Racine on November 30th. 2016. 

During the execution of the search warrant, a dog named Sugar was "dispatched" by police.

According to the documents obtained from the public records request; The City of Racine Police executed the no-knock warrant at 5:03 am on Wednesday, November 30th, 2016. seeking an unidentified .40 caliber firearm (handgun). 

This no-knock search warrant was based on an ongoing investigation of an attempted homicide on 11-15-2016 that took place in the 1700 block of Washington Ave.

  Racine Police along with SWAT, SIU, COP, Gang Unit,  FBI Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Gang Task Force and an MPPD officer executed the warrant.

The target of the search warrant was a .40 caliber handgun which was allegedly used by a 17 year old juvenile in an attempted murder.  The 17 year old was a suspect in several shootings involving a dispute among rival street gangs, including the Dirty P gang, of which the suspect was alleged by Racine Police to be a member.

 The search warrant yielded two suspects, both juveniles who were found in the basement.  Authorities apprehended the two suspects and held them for questioning.

Evidence collected during the search included the following; 

 Apple I-pad

Apple I-phone 

ZTE brand touch screen cell phone with shattered face

LG brand touch screen cell phone with shattered face 
2 DNA Buccal swabs.

Out of approximately 15 officers involved in the executed search warrant, only one officer in the documents referenced marijuana and stated the following;

  "Immediately upon entry into the residence I detected an odor of burnt or freshly-smoked marijuana throughout the entire residence".  This officer (Sergeant %%%)  was the SWAT team leader.

Throughout the reports,  there is no mention of any drug evidence collected during the search, nor was the target .40 caliber handgun located during the execution of the search warrant.

Whether any data was collected from the confiscated phones or I-Pad is unknown to the writer at this time. 

Here are a few excerpts from the reports:

"the team breacher forced entry to the front door.  I immediately announce in a clear, loud voice "Police. Search Warrant." I made my way inside to the living room and immediately saw a large white dog jump from the couch and run through a threshold to my left."

“It is common knowledge that persons involved in illegal activity own large, vicious dogs to not only guard against rival criminals but also to impede law enforcement should they be a target of a search warrant”.

"The dog had a delivery system for utilization of the weapon(functioning legs to advance on the entry team,working jaws which was evident by the dog's K-9 teeth which were displayed, no obstructions between SWAT operator Sergeant ### and the dog".

"The dog presented an "imminent threat" to SWAT operator Sergeant ### and the entry team as a whole"

"My assignment was the #1 position in the first cell on the entry team.  I was armed with my department issued M4 rifle and dressed in full SWAT police uniform and body armor"   

( Sergeant ### who "dispatched" Sugar)

According to information gleaned from the reports about the dog;  When police forcefully entered the house, the dog jumped off of the living room couch and ran away thru a hallway into a bedroom.

A SWAT officer fully equipped with body armor and an M4 assault rifle followed the dog thru the hallway and entered the threshold of the bedroom.  The dog was trapped with no other avenues of escape. 

The dog growled, displayed its teeth and moved towards the SWAT officer.  The SWAT officer (Sergeant ###) fearing an imminent threat "dispatched"(executed) the dog, discharging 5 rounds from his M4 assault rifle at the dog.

Racine Police conducted an "in house" review of the incident and found the actions of the SWAT team to be appropriate and justified. 

(the "in house review" was conducted by the team leader of  SWAT, Sergeant %%%)

For additional information concerning this incident;

 http://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/family-rattled-after-dog-killed-during-warrant-execution/article_87f58cda-064a-5c9e-9a88-b3cc1be023e5.html

http://journaltimes.com/news/local/police-say-actions-justified-in-dog-shooting/article_00f970ba-7ea4-5b3d-b07a-04f050c25013.html

Now for RCC's take on this event and the police

"in house review".

We hardly consider a dog to be an imminent threat to a fully attired SWAT officer complete with body armor. That argument is both ludicrous and just plain laughable.

 Understanding the dynamics of a high intensity no - knock search warrant may help us in assessing the decision the officer made when he shot the dog.  Before the dog was shot, the room had yet to be secured, so there was a possibility others could have been hiding in the room waiting for the right opportunity to do harm.

The "dispatching" officer stated in his report:

 "the animal showed its teeth, growled and charged in my direction.  Fearing an imminent threat for my safety and the safety of my teammates, I fired three rounds from my rifle as the animal then turned away from me. I could tell I struck the animal 1-3 times. The dog out of view behind the bed, then jumped on the bed and came toward me again.  Fearing an imminent threat for my safety and the safety of my teammates, I fired one round which had an immediate effect, stopping the animal and its advance towards me. the dog was laying on the bed incapacitated but breathing heavily with its eyes open. I was under the impression that, although the animal was fatally wounded , it was potentially suffering.  As a humane measure, I approached and fired one last round in the animal's head which stopped its movement altogether". 

A dog friendly(smarter) officer may have used a less than lethal tactic by using his M4 assault rifle to blunt, block or lightly batter the dog to thwart and discourage any possible attack from the dog. 

The M4 is a durable weapon and the choice of most of the U.S. armed forces, so when the M4 is used like a bō, it can effectively block, thrust and strike a dog to deter or thwart its aggressive behavior.

So the officer made the choice to "dispatch" the dog instead of using "less than lethal tactics" when another less than lethal choice was available.

To compound the issues:  

The Racine Police Department "in house" Weapons Discharge  Review  was conducted by the same SWAT team leader

(Sergeant %%%%) who led the SWAT team during the incident.
In his "in house" report to Racine Police Deputy Chief John Polzin, Sergeant %%% determined that the actions of SWAT were appropriate and justified.

He got to investigate himself

HOW CONVENIENT IS THAT?