KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - What you need to know when the cops come a-knocking and raiding

​WHEN police break down doors during raids, the damage can go beyond shattered locks. 

​Recent allegations in the Western Cape have raised questions about what the law actually allows when officers force entry.

​In recent months, the Daily Voice has reported on several incidents where forced entries left mense with extensive property damage and unanswered questions.

​In one case, a Hanover Park resident claimed that Anti-Gang Unit (AGU) officers trashed her home during a raid, leaving her with broken doors and ransacked belongings.

Another incident saw a Kensington woman accuse AGU members of trashing their home and torturing her boyfriend and his friends during an operation, allegations that are now part of an ongoing investigation.

​While police raids are often justified as necessary tools in the fight against gang violence and serious crime, the Constitution protects the privacy and property of residents. That raises an important question: what does the law actually allow when police force entry into a home?

​DA MP Nicholas Gotsell, who previously practised as an attorney, said the general rule under the Criminal Procedure Act is that police must obtain a warrant before entering and searching a home, but there are exceptions.

​Gotsell said: “Under the Criminal Procedure Act, police must usually obtain a warrant before entering and searching a home. 

​“However, there are exceptions. Police may enter without a warrant if the person in control of the property consents, or if there is urgency and the delay in obtaining a warrant would defeat the object of the search.”

​He said officers may also enter without a warrant if they are lawfully arresting a suspect and reasonably believe the person is inside the property.

​Gotsell stated: “The standard is one of objective reasonableness. It is not simply what an officer claims. A court will consider whether the belief was reasonable in the circumstances. If urgency is exaggerated or fabricated, the entry becomes unlawful.”

​He said even where entry is lawful, the force used must be necessary and proportionate.

​Gotsell added: “Breaking a door may be lawful if access is refused. But destroying windows, furniture, ceilings, or cupboards without operational necessity may not be.”

​He said property damage becomes unlawful when it is excessive, punitive, negligent, or continues after compliance has been secured.

​Gotsell said: “The Constitution always applies. The right to privacy and property rights remain in force during police operations.”

​Section 14 of the Constitution protects the right to privacy, while property rights are also safeguarded, meaning police powers, although broad in certain circumstances, are not unlimited.

​He said residents may pursue a civil claim for damages through the courts if entry was unlawful or force was excessive.

​Gotsell said: “The Minister of Police is vicariously liable for SAPS members. A claimant must prove the entry was unlawful or that the force used was unreasonable or excessive, that damage occurred, that police caused it, and quantify the loss.”

​He warned that such cases are not simple and often take years to finalise due to backlogs and administrative processes. He reminded mense that bringing a civil claim requires evidence and documentation.

​Gotsell stated: “Evidence is critical. Photograph everything immediately. Obtain witness statements, repair quotations, case numbers, and medical reports where applicable.”

​Courts assess whether the force used was operationally necessary, whether there was resistance, and whether less invasive methods could have achieved the objective.

​He advised residents who believe their rights were violated to document everything, request officer details and the warrant, obtain witnesses, seek medical care where necessary, and consult an attorney as soon as possible.

​However, when it comes to oversight, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) clarified that not all complaints fall within its jurisdiction.

​Independent Police Investigation Directorate (IPID) spokesperson Phaladi Shuping said complaints relating to property damage during police operations fall outside its mandate.

​Shuping said: “Cases of damage to property are outside the mandate of IPID. They are investigated by the police.”

​That means residents alleging property damage must pursue the matter through civil claims or internal police processes rather than IPID investigations.

​Gotsell added that the balance between crime-fighting and constitutional rights is a very close-run thing.

​He said: “The balance here is delicate. Police must have operational tools to combat violent crime, particularly in gang-affected areas.

​“But constitutional democracy demands accountability, proportionality and respect for dignity and property.

​“When excessive force goes unchecked, it undermines community trust and cooperation, which ultimately harms policing itself.”

​Legal experts say the tension between crime-fighting and constitutional rights is not new. Police are often required to act quickly in volatile situations, particularly in gang hotspots. But urgency does not suspend the law.

​For residents, understanding what the law permits and what it does not may be the first step in ensuring accountability when homes are left damaged in the wake of police action.

​In communities already grappling with crime and mistrust, clarity about legal rights could make the difference between silence and action when doors are broken, and belongings are left scattered behind.​