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

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.


I am with you on that, if you wouldn't want it on the news, don't do it. Being recorded should not make any difference. I can't see the story or the video, for some reason when I try and follow the link I get nowhere. I was speaking in general terms about how we do business.
 
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.


Because imminent destruction of evidence falls under the exigent circumstances exception to search warrants (Fourth Amendment). If there is danger of imminent destruction of evidence, you can take steps to prevent that, but that is not a blanket exemption to search or seize. Nor should it be. It is just what it sounds like, prevent the destruction of evidence. That's it. No further. Only after a warrant is obtained, then you search. The sweep should be and needs to be based on probable cause, and your warrant application is also based on probable cause.

So, if I was at a scene where I had PC to believe that there was evidence of a crime to be found, enough PC that I believed that I could obtain a warrant, I would have enough PC to secure the scene and prevent the destruction of evidence. It's not just a let's secure this scene and even though we have no evidence and no probable cause, we will secure it and try and get a warrant.
 
Thanks.

This may make your response clearer to some others.

If I understand your response, the exigent circumstance makes the warrantless search you term a "sweep" reasonable, and it is therefore not an unreasonable search under the 4th Am.

If I misunderstood, feel free to note that.
 
its funny that they mentioned the seize of the house but it was all smoke or bluff. Yes, they could've done that but weren't in the position to do it at that point. Maybe they should get their LT's approval ahead of time and then mention that to the owner when they are planning on actually doing the seize(especially since some officers were saying they didn't know what was going on in the first place).

The man never made it inside his home, so I mean the woman had a point. The guy wasn't to smart to run from the police in his back yard when they asked for ID, but there is no way to know exactly what happened&I guess he had his reasons. Conn Trooper- I realize you haven't seen the video.
 
Nope, thats it. Exigent circumstances (imminent destruction of evidence, loss of life, hot pursuit, etc.) make the search reasonable. Must be based on PC.
 
Hypothetical situation, but I'm curious. Conn. Trooper, if you were called to a drug manufacturing property and had to seize the building to protect evidence, during your sweep, how would you handle it if you saw money printing equipment/some other type of evidence of another crime? Would you ignore the 'other' evidence, until a warrant was issued, or directly after the sweep, get a warrant for ALL types of evidence seen?
And, wouldn't seeing another type of evidence other than what was being swept for, and acting on it, be something amounting to evidence from an illegal search?
Reason I ask this is that my local deputies several years ago busted a man for drugs with a drug warrant. Found his home full to the ceiling with stolen items, but did nothing about it. And, when I asked why not, they said merely that they were in there on a drug warrant.
sixgun
 
I can understand that a number of states have a requirement that if an LEO asks for your ID you have to produce it, but what I don't understand is this: The male in this situation was under the assumption that he wasn't doing anything wrong. If you're in your own back yard, minding your own business, not bothering or hurting anyone and an LEO walks up and says "Sir, I need to see your identification, now" you can't tell me you're going to hand it right over and say "Yes, Mister Hitler Sir" and not question anything! I sure would question it!
 
Um lets see here, trailor park in Lincoln Nebraska, yards are like 10 foot by 12 foot if that. Now I am not saying he was doing bad things cause I wasnt there, but I myself do not go into trailor parks due to the drugs and violence these places have to offer.

If you live in the ghetto, expect to be treated with suspicion by the cops. I would bet they often have to go to that place and often encounter problem people.

Cops are people, they been to the place before not his but one in the area, had trouble know it may be the same get all worked up, adrenaline pumping, they react he reacts cops will beat you up and or shoot you if they feel they have to for their safety.

I do as they ask, I have nothing to hide. I have seen cops go wild at parties and gatherings and literally beat the crap out of everyone. They are human and get worked up.

I myself would never shoot a bow in the city, I have seen an arrow miss, hit a fence and fly wildly into who knows what. It isnt safe, same as shooting a gun, in the city limits you will be treated badly.

Use common sense and this may not ever happen to you.
 
Hypothetical situation, but I'm curious. Conn. Trooper, if you were called to a drug manufacturing property and had to seize the building to protect evidence, during your sweep, how would you handle it if you saw money printing equipment/some other type of evidence of another crime? Would you ignore the 'other' evidence, until a warrant was issued, or directly after the sweep, get a warrant for ALL types of evidence seen?
And, wouldn't seeing another type of evidence other than what was being swept for, and acting on it, be something amounting to evidence from an illegal search?
Reason I ask this is that my local deputies several years ago busted a man for drugs with a drug warrant. Found his home full to the ceiling with stolen items, but did nothing about it. And, when I asked why not, they said merely that they were in there on a drug warrant.
sixgun

I would obtain another warrant for the items in question. I would not ignore stolen stuff laying around. That is stuff that people worked hard for and had stolen, if I can return it to someone that is missing it, I would.

Plain view is another exception to search warrants. If I was legally in the residence or wherever, and view items in plain view, then they are fair game. Example, I go on an ambulance call, standard procedure for us to respond in this town ( I was a Resident Trooper at the time, essentially a Trooper assigned to one town, and acts as a town officer), and knock on the door. Male comes to the door and I ask if he called the ambulance, he says he did and that he feels like he is having a heart attack. He walks into the living room and sits down on the couch. I follow him in and there is 6 pounds of marijuana, scales, and packaging material right on the coffee table. We secured a warrant and searched the whole place. I was there lawfully, he invited me in, and the items were in plain view, no issues with improper search. This actually happened, the guy had tried meth for the first time and thought he was having a heart attack. And he still let me in.:cool:
 
markj said:
Use common sense and this may not ever happen to you.
Click to expand...

The absence of common sense was seemingly universal in this situation. Common decency was also missing. If the guy says he is going inside to get his ID, let him. If he comes out with a gun, respond accordingly. According to what the woman said, there was no reason to believe he was going inside to get a weapon, and none of the officers on the scene refuted that in the video. The only thing they seemed to have was that they got cut on something while they tried to tackle him. They found he didn't have a gun in the home, confirming what the woman in the video said.

You have to have probable cause and a reason to believe that there will be a destruction of or tampering with evidence to seize a house. What evidence were the police trying to save? The crossbow? Was the wife going to flush it down the toilet after they had both already admitted that he was shooting the bow in the yard? There was no reason to believe there was contraband in the home from what I saw on the videos. They found throwing stars, knives, and bows, none of which are illegal in and of themselves.

It doesn't matter where you live, who you are, or what you look like, the police are bound by the constitution and should be obligated to act in a professional manner.
 
1)
It doesn't matter where you live, who you are, or what you look like, the police are bound by the constitution and should be obligated to act in a professional manner.
Click to expand...

good point- wish it was true more Pichon


2)
Hypothetical situation, but I'm curious. Conn. Trooper, if you were called to a drug manufacturing property and had to seize the building to protect evidence, during your sweep, how would you handle it if you saw money printing equipment/some other type of evidence of another crime? Would you ignore the 'other' evidence, until a warrant was issued, or directly after the sweep, get a warrant for ALL types of evidence seen?
And, wouldn't seeing another type of evidence other than what was being swept for, and acting on it, be something amounting to evidence from an illegal search?
Reason I ask this is that my local deputies several years ago busted a man for drugs with a drug warrant. Found his home full to the ceiling with stolen items, but did nothing about it. And, when I asked why not, they said merely that they were in there on a drug warrant.
sixgun
Click to expand...

sixgun, conn trooper is right- if something is in plain view than it is fair game and always fair game even if the search warrant is specifically for something else. that deputy deserves a cigar and had maybe just gotten out of the academy. kidding - but those deputies did the right thing which isn't always the case obviously. they might easily get away with it too when it is an illegal search if the evidence isn't supressed, you don't have a lot of money for a lawyer, are from a bad area, etc etc etc)

if a cop finds a Huge bundle of cocaine, ecstasy pills, joints, etc in a small sock drawer in a bedroom next to the room where the computer is where the warrant is specifically for(specifically for files, downloads literally on the computer). That evidence can be supressed(again, with a lawyer that actually gives a d*&n.
 
that deputy deserves a cigar and had maybe just gotten out of the academy. kidding - but those deputies did the right thing which isn't always the case obviously. they might easily get away with it too when it is an illegal search if the evidence isn't supressed, you don't have a lot of money for a lawyer, are from a bad area, etc etc etc)

if a cop finds a Huge bundle of cocaine, ecstasy pills, joints, etc in a small sock drawer in a bedroom next to the room where the computer is where the warrant is specifically for(specifically for files, downloads literally on the computer). That evidence can be supressed(again, with a lawyer that actually gives a d*&n.


Um, no they didn't do the right thing. If they lawfully saw stolen goods, while executing a valid search warrant, then they should have gotten a new warrant and seized those items and returned them to the rightful owner.

If they found them in an unlawful manner, shame on them. Warrants are very specific as to where you can search and enter. If they were legally executing a warrant and the items were in plain view where they were lawfully serving the warrant, it's fair game. Maybe I am reading this situation wrong.
 
you didnt read it wrong. my bad. I jumped the gun with the fact that the deputies used caution instead of being rash, yet I over-read some of the content while noticing that. seeing drugs in plain view though is different than seeing stolen items. depending on how obvious it was that the items were stolen. if the stolen items are in plain view they are fair game

as for my 2nd quoted paragraph above: I stand by that. drugs hidden in a desk drawer in a different room during a computer files warrant would be evidence from an illegal search and could be supressed.
 
The reason I was able to talk to one of the deputies was because some of those stolen goods that they saw, were mine. Long story, for another day. And, I never got them back. Officers wanted the man and didn't care about anything else. They'd been trying to lock him up for years.
sixgun
 
Warrants are very specific as to where you can search and enter. If they were legally executing a warrant and the items were in plain view where they were lawfully serving the warrant, it's fair game. Maybe I am reading this situation wrong.
Click to expand...

Conn. Trooper, question, with the above statement made. When you sweep are you sweeping in total. Intire house, all rooms, do you open closet doors, perhaps a large trunk?

The reason I ask if the sweep is performed as I stated would the warrant have to match what YOU sweep?
 
Securing a scene would be checking every place a person could be. Reasonably be. Large trunk, I guess maybe. Closet? Sure. You are securing the scene for people, not looking for evidence.
 
Conn.tropper,

This is some of the video from the female in the house.

!. We have very few facts about what went down prior to the 10-88 call other than some blood and broken property, and bleeding LEO's

2. Shooting a weapon in a public place like in this incident is criminal. Sorry I have no sympathy for someone that ignorant. and his wife/Lawyer should have counciled him better.

3. There is nothing wrong with the LEO,s asking permition to enter and nothing wrong with the resident refusing.

4. At this stage of the incident the weapon (bow & Arrows) will need to be seized as evidence and going on a donut break would have been bad form.
So they were waiting for a warrant.
They didn't do a safety sweep but seemed to have it in mind but apparently decided to wait.

The whole situation went South and that happens for all too many reasons but 1st of all because someone was doing something wrong/stupid-wrong.
And we do not have access to the information the LEO's would have as to the history of this residence to help them in making decisions.

I for one thank Conn. Trooper for his insights especially when they were more hypothetical of the given situation.

Greg
 
After viewing the video I shall refrain from giving my opinion because doing so shall keep me a member of TFL.
To all have a wonderful day.
 
Would someone care to summarize all the points of the OP?

I'm asking, because this thread really hasn't looked at what the law is about, in the context of the OP, nor is there any real mention of a civil rights issue.

So please, somebody summarize the facts and issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top