News story- Police respond to man playing with crossbow in his backyard

Conn Trooper said:
...usually you have plenty of PC for a search ...

That makes sense.

You may be at a disadvantage with regard to some of these questions if you can't read the story. I gather the PD received a call that a man was shooting a crossbow in his yard, they were somewhat rough with him, and after removing him from the scene, i.e. outside, wanted to search his home. The countenance of the POs ranged from agitated (maybe they'd had a call of an injured PO) to calm and polite. The wife was indoors and refused the search of the home.
 
Thats the problem with the latest generation of cops, so many seem to want to treat everyone as a victim or a criminal.

By 00
This sort of characterization seems to fit the latest generation of cops going back for decades. It isn't so much an issue with the generation as it is an issue with being new, inexperienced, and still figuring out how to deal with different people in different situations

Double Naught said it pretty well. It seems to me a bit of experience on the part of the police would have caused a completely different situation.
 
hogdogs(refering to your last post), I thought about that even before conn trooper's posts but it would be nice to get more info from him. If my thinking process was correct in the first place w/regards to 'seize', I saw it as they would secure the area: making sure noone came in and at very least took note of anyone leaving until the warrant was possibly attained. if they sweep the home they need probably cause, but as I mentioned earlier, you give up your rights when you consent to the search. they are going to search if they think they can or should anyways. you have a right to not consent to a search. you do not see the ones that get away with legally refusing a search during "Cops" on saturday nights. you only see the ones that allow it because they are clueless, trying to be nice, or intimidated into thinking they are doing something wrong if they say no. some of these kids have no clue- they do not need to be hassled if they donot allow it. One can respect police and the work they do without giving up their rights.
 
best line of 2nd video(bottom link of OP):

"Ma'am, I don't know. We don't just go over people's houses and tackle them for no reason."
 
ID Checks

This all started when an officer requested ID from the husband. A number of states require everyone to provide identification on demand of LE. His refusal would thus be unreasonable if his state requires compliance to ID request.

As said earlier, it is odd that almost everyone in this story "dug in their heels" early and hard. One does not have to give up any rights in order to be considerate, kind and polite.
 
This all started when an officer requested ID from the husband. A number of states require everyone to provide identification on demand of LE. His refusal would thus be unreasonable if his state requires compliance to ID request.

It doesn't apply in your home or anyplace there would be an expectation of privacy. Now I didn't see his backyard but I would like to read the law that says you are required to have Identification at all times on your private property.
 
What if he was going inside to get his ID and that's when they bull rushed him? Like someone said earlier, even a mediocre lawyer will make good on this one...
 
Conn. trooper, If you want to "seize" a home, you need to "sweep" it? This means you "enter"? If that is what you mean, How do you "sweep" it if you are denied entry by the occupant?

I know little more than what my BOR tells me... If an LEO wanted to search, I would politely tell them to get a warrant and shut the door.

If that means I just created a "stand off"... so be it... Putting your head past my threshold and peeking is SEARCHING and I won't be part and party to an unwarranted search of my home...

Brent


True, if you are securing a scene you would ensure there no people inside to destroy evidence. The sweep is exactly like it sounds, not a search for evidence, just a search for people. Once that has been done, you apply for a warrant. If the evidence that you are searching for can not be readily destroyed, like a gun or crossbow, I would secure the scene and prevent anyone from leaving with evidence and if a warrant is obtained, then I would search. If the evidence could be destroyed, like drugs, money, papers, etc. Then I would sweep, remove the people from the area to be searched, and apply for the warrant.

The best example I can give of a protective sweep is this. I am dispatched to a house where a family member has found a dead body. They have gone to check on a relative and found them dead in the house. I arrive, it appears suspicious, so I check the house for other victims ( don't want to be standing outside and people bleeding to death inside), once the sweep has been made, apply for a search warrant. If it's a natural death that just looked suspicious, so what? Writing a warrant is not hard work and search by warrant is always the best way to go. If it's a legit homicide, you covered your bases and obtained a warrant, no tainted evidence, no evidence tossed out.

Another example. I am doing Commercial Vehicle Enforcement. I stop a truck from Laredo, Texas. A known source city for drug trafficers. I see numerous signs and indicators of narcotics smuggling. A narcotics detection K-9 arrives and sniffs the truck. The dog indicates to the presence of narcotics. I ask for consent to search and the driver says no. I would then secure the truck, prevent it from leaving and prevent the driver from destroying or tampering with anything, and apply for a search warrant based on my training and observations of the known naroctics indicators and the K-9 alert on the vehicle. If the warrant was issued, then I am going to search.
 
The dog indicates to the presence of narcotics. I ask for consent to search and the driver says no.
Funny you mention this scenario... Every time I refuse a vehicle search, the copper gets the Canine Cop to "walk the dog" around my ride... then like clock work, the dog cop gets the dog out of my sight, nods to his buddy and says, "We have an alert" and I am then frisked and my ride searched as they claim PC...

But back to a dwelling and NOT A HOMICIDE... with the RESIDING OCCUPANT inside telling you that you are not SEARCHING.

If you think I would let you step foot in to "SWEEP" for ANYTHING, yer outta yer mind... While "sweeping" for "persons" who "might be destroying evidence" you are performing a VISUAL SEARCH... don't pee on my back and tell me it is a warm summer rain.

Sure... you might not dump my dresser drawers or flip my mattress but searching with your eyes...

So to prevent my rights from being trampled we will just wait for the warrant, you might lose a bit of evidence but that is a small price to pay to make sure an American citizen doesn't have his Civil rights infringed upon... Denying a person of their civil rights can carry a life sentence in federal prison and I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone on my behalf.

Brent
 
But back to a dwelling and NOT A HOMICIDE... with the RESIDING OCCUPANT inside telling you that you are not SEARCHING.

If you think I would let you step foot in to "SWEEP" for ANYTHING, yer outta yer mind... While "sweeping" for "persons" who "might be destroying evidence" you are performing a VISUAL SEARCH... don't pee on my back and tell me it is a warm summer rain.

Sure... you might not dump my dresser drawers or flip my mattress but searching with your eyes...

So to prevent my rights from being trampled we will just wait for the warrant, you might lose a bit of evidence but that is a small price to pay to make sure an American citizen doesn't have his Civil rights infringed upon... Denying a person of their civil rights can carry a life sentence in federal prison and I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone on my behalf.

Brent


And interfering with an officer that is lawfully performing their duties puts you in prison as well. Civil rights only bar unreasonable searches, not searches by warrant, probable cause, protective sweeps, etc. The case law is there. Has been for a long time, interfere or resist and you may end up in prison.

Now if the cops are in the wrong, then let the chips fall where they may. There are legal ways to address mistakes and wrongdoing by cops.
 
Conn Trooper said:
Now if the cops are in the wrong, then let the chips fall where they may. There are legal ways to address mistakes and wrongdoing by cops.

Indeed.

I think what a few others and I don't grasp is how a PO in the absence of PC could "sweep" (which appears to be itself a search) in order to "secure" (a temporary seizure) a home without a warrant so he can later get a warrant that permits a search and seizure.

That appears to be the situation described in the original post. Toward the end of that, the woman refuses to consent to the search and the PO says he can secure the house, but there doesn't seem to be an indication that he did that.
 
Because in cases like that the cops believe they have PC to search. If they didn't think they had PC, why apply for a warrant? You don't get warrants without PC. So, secure the scene (House, car, person, whatever) and apply for the warrant based on your probable cause. The courts have allowed the securing of a scene if imminent destruction or removal of evidence is possible.

Example-If I find a stolen car and the reporting agency says "hold for prints, or hold for forensic examination", I seize the car ( tow it away and bring it back to the troop, I don't have a warrant yet but I have PC to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime) then based on that probable cause, I secure a warrant and then I search it.

Many times cops have plenty of PC for a search and still go get a search warrant because Judicial Review (a search warrant) is the best and safest way to go. Even with warrants not everything is fair game. If I have a warrant to seize computer information ( like in a kiddie **** case, I am searching and seizing computers, hard drives, etc) and I am lawfully in the residence conducting that search, and I see drugs, weapons, whatever. I would go get another, seperate search warrant for that item. Now if I am in the house with a warrant to seize computers only, I could not open a sock drawer or medicine cabinet, if they couldn't conceal a computer.
 
so if a LEO comes to my residence and for some reason asks to come inside i can deny them their request. they can then come inside anyhow under the fact that they are doing a "protective sweep"? that seems like an underhand trick that LEO's know they have under their sleeve. what then stops you from visually seeing the kilo of crack, pounds of weed, dead bodies, illegal brothel, etc, or nothing at all and not getting the warrant?
 
Um, no cops don't just show up at your door for no reason and ask to come inside. If there is no reason to be there, then there is no need for a sweep or a search.
 
If there is no reason to be there....

Sounds great, until a 90yo great grandmother is killed in a botched raid, PC for which was a false statement by a CI.

Or until a guy with a grudge starts making false complaints.

Or a LEO decides to go look for the guy he shared an off-duty road rage incident with.

All of which have made the news in the last twelve months (the great grandmother died before that, but aspects of the case were still ongoing).

I am generally strongly pro-cop, but blanket statements like "We wouldn't be there without PC" are up there with,"If the President does it, that means it's legal."

The old Roman saying, "Yes, but who will watch the watchers?" leaps to mind.

Secure my property without a warrant, and you had best have all ducks in a row, as there will be lawsuits. In the event an officer acted outside state law or departmental protocol, there would be a parallel suit against that officer.
 
Conn Trooper, three of my dojo mates (and best friends) are cops. My HS asst wrestling coach was a cop. A former squadronmate of mine went Secret Service and last I knew was on Bill Clinton's protective detail. My cousin was a cop. Several of my co-workers are former state troopers.

I am not anti-cop, to say the very least.

So accusing me of anti-cop BS for using real world examples to point out that the system can be abused only highlights the fact that the system tends to assume the system is always right, and also tends to lash out at anybody who suggests it isn't always the case.
 
Lash out? Good one. :D Look a few posts up where I was the one saying there is legal recourse against cops when things go wrong, and that the chips fall where they may if they were in the wrong.

And I " lash out" because without fail, somebody will throw the bad cop scenario out there. No matter what, it pops up sooner or later.
 
I think the bad cop scenario comes up in these discussions because protection against bad behavior is part of the purpose of civil protections.

Conn Trooper said:
Why do I bother?

Probably because you thought you could answer some of our questions.

Conn Trooper said:
If there is no reason to be there, then there is no need for a sweep or a search.

That's what gives rise to some of our questions about this story. I still don't understand how a "sweep" isn't a search or why one needs a warrant but the other doesn't.

I can add that to the list of things I don't get.
 
You said....

... there is legal recourse, if the cops are in the wrong.

Your other statements all seemed to imply that you don't think that happens all that often.

Given all the officer interactions that go down in any given year, you are mostly right. Sometimes, though, some pretty ridiculous things happen, and it normally seems that the first thing that happens is the department(s) circle the wagons.

At least, if often seems that things take very sharp turns when contradictory video evidence turns up - often after it's been given directly to media outlets.

I personally believe most cops mean well, and most behave honorably. Same goes for DA's. Assuming that they all don't would be insulting and ridiculous. But assuming that they all do is only slightly less ridiculous. Even if the percentage of dishonest LEO's and DA's is small, they do exist, and so a healthy level of skepticism is a good thing.

I find that most cops I know, even though they'll acknowledge they work with some guys who tend to be bullies and idiots, are loathe to think that their peers would do anything wrong - even when they describe the guy in question as a jerk. Could be professional benefit of the doubt, could be the good cops don't like to see the bad cops (or just inept cops) reflect on them, and don't really want to think about it.

Note: one friend of mine left a job as a deputy because the Sheriff made life miserable for him after he exposed some abuses going on at his county jail. The abuse was systemic, and involved interrogation techniques.

In this particular case, it's very odd that some are arguing that the police "had a history" with the arrestee, and yet the initial problem was that he wouldn't show ID. Did they have a history, but not know who he was? If so, how did they know they had a history?

Of course, it's possible the initial officers on scene were warned about the guy, but didn't know him personally.

It's just that a lot of what was described, sets off personal warning bells. The change in attitude of the one officer, when he realized that A) the lady knew the 4th Amendment, and B) she was recording set off some more of those bells.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top