16

Texas Sheriffs Raid, Search, Seize, & Arrest of Homeowner Who Refused Consent to Warrantless Search

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 7 months ago to Government
42 comments | Share | Flag

Here we go again: Another fine example of heavy handed Police tactics against the innocent without a warrant. Hello Police, get a damned warrant and stop following unconstitutional orders. Really... It can't be that hard to get a warrant if one is justified. And, in this case speaking to the homeowners should have been enough investigating this uncorroborated "imminent threat." There was no need to force a search and abuse the homeowners. Unless of course you are so in lockstep that common sense has eluded you and you believe they were all in collusion...
Additional link to the source: https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
SOURCE URL: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/08/texas-sheriffs-raid-search-seize-arrest-of-homeowner-who-refused-consent-to-warrantless-search/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by gerstj 8 years, 7 months ago
    Even if there is a ruling against the police department, it will be the insurance company or the taxpayers who will pay the judgment. There needs to be personal sanctions against the officers such as removal, assault charges, or individual judgments..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 7 months ago
      The primary reason for annual training in the Alabama Department of Corrections is to protect the department from lawsuits.
      Example: For 21 years I was trained not to hit an inmate in the head with my baton, If I ever brained an inmate with my baton, I would, at least in theory, be on my own in a courtroom.
      I don't know how county mounties or city cops are trained.
      I suspect hardly at all as well for the large part.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 8 years, 7 months ago
    They never did explain why they were looking for the son and this unnamed girl. Is it possible they believed the son had kidnapped someone? A warrant would have been a slam dunk. The police will probably argue time was of the essence because of the medical condition.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 8 years, 7 months ago
      Instantaneous responsiveness is one of the reasons why cell phones and e-mail were invented. If they had made a couple of phone calls, the warrant process could have happened in parallel.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 7 months ago
        I'm not sure that them getting a warrant is the answer to the problem since all they have to do is call a magistrate, not even a judge or a court of record.

        It has more to do with gaining respect from police for the homes and rights of citizens. Remove their immunity.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
          Well, it would at least be one more check/speed-bump to slow down the abuse and Judges are elected, whereas Police are hired and thus unchecked even by the voters. As for magistrates, though they are un-elected they still must abide by some constraints http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCr... I completely support and agree with your argument regarding immunity. It should apply to Police as well as Judges and Magistrates..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Hello richrobinson,
      Indeed. And, if that is all that is required to have their way, then it is no leap of logic to assume many will make such a statement (true or false) arbitrarily in order to have their way regardless of one's rights. If allowed to stand it is an unjust power fraught with exponential opportunity for more abuse.
      Regards,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 8 years, 7 months ago
      The cops just wanted to be "big men" and throw around their power. The problem they have now is that this sort of thing goes on all the time, and they are fighting the fact that I dont have time to investigate, but have concluded based on prior information that the cops are wrong in this case.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 7 months ago
    The officers need to be held personally responsible. None of this "I was just following orders" crap is valid in the America I once knew. If that is done they'll think twice about warrantless searches.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 7 months ago
    I just feel better when the police are NOT around. They have become my enemy, because they enforce so many victimless laws that I really dont know if I am a criminal or not. I dont feel this way when they arent around, so I would prefer that we reduce the number of cops by a LOT. I will handle my own security and defense, thank you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Hello term2,
      There are so many senseless laws on the books, on average we all commit three felonies every day. http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19...

      "There's no way to rule innocent men.
      The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
      that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Ayn Rand
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 7 months ago
    That must have been terrifying, and also for Mr. Dantzler, astonishing and chilling in the extreme. We don't live in nazi Germany, yet the tactics being used more and more often are like those employed by the jackbooted thugs.

    It was interesting that the word inversion was used, considering that is what Ayn Rand said of a government that dominated its people, as opposed to serving the people. (A nod to OA, there.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 8 years, 7 months ago
    The parallel culture of unbridled paramilitary forces serving the government elites is a natural outcome of any and all socialist systems. Placing specific restrictions, rules or laws on the police may slow down the cancer, but will not stop it. Our system is thoroughly corroded; only a replacement of the system can bring worthwhile and lasting results.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
    Skipping back and fast backwarding to the beginning WHAT does Texas Law allow in this area?

    a. Warrantless searches are not allowed.
    b. Warrantless searches are allowed.
    c. Warrantless searches are allowed under certain circumstances.
    d. Other choices as of yet unknown

    For B, C, D what steps if any are citizens of Texas taking to change, modify, edit, delete or add to this particular law.

    What are the facts if any or must we, once again, do the research?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Hello MichaelAarethun,
      Interesting question. I should think the Constitution would trump Texas Law, but the SCOTUS has weakened the fourth amendment with some decisions that have allowed more leeway. Here are the present guidelines under the U.S. Constitution. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-...
      I am of the opinion that The SCOTUS is not infallible and has made many mistakes and violated the spirit of the 4th amendment as well as in other areas and that is something we all should be concerned with and make our displeasure known.

      It would be good to have the opinion of someone knowledgeable about Texas Law. Any research you do regarding Texas Law would be appreciated.
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
        I agree with your backup comments. I'm reminded the amount of agencies local, state, national,, reporting in since 1994 is less than 25% at best with not all of them fact checked. From that CATO got the one percent on average figure of misconduct across the entire spectrum of crime for the 800,000 law officers and the same result for the numbers of citizens. Unless the unknown results are wildly skewed the best we can say is 'hey only one percent of the cops are dirty and only one percent of the citizens are dirty." For sure 100 percent of our elected officials from POTUS on down are at fault from Clinton through Bush to Obama and all the legislators as well. So it's either take heart it's only one percent, or damn that's one in every hundred, or continue to ask, especially locally what's being done to correct recruitment, training, local procedures (high speed chases come to mind.) Add to that the Patriot Act it's easy to be disenchanted. All the more reason to provide as much facts as possible and do whatever is possible in all local areas.

        Ditto on the request for Texas Law. I read everything I can on the Supremes and the Patriot Act. They clearly weren't doing an acceptable job as far as I can see. However they are, alone, of the three branches,filling the expectations and requirements of their office. I say that tongue in cheek - There are no requirements except nomination and Senate approval. A flaw in the system that shows.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 7 months ago
    42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights. The individual cops can be sued as individuals:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...

    While working for the State of Wyoming, I urged a couple who had their day care shut down without due process to sue the individuals who made that decision. The couple won the lawsuit and a nice settlement. The Director of my agency said I had no loyalty; I told her she had no integrity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 7 months ago
      Hello jimjamesjames,
      This is good. Why aren't we hearing more of this? We need more people of integrity like you in the right places.
      I wonder if the understanding and interpretation of the exception- " except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." is how they manage to avoid consequence... since our courts often read into things what they wish, do they misinterpret this section? Or is it simply that many are unaware or wish to ignore this statue, like your Director?
      Respectfully,
      O.A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 8 years, 7 months ago
        OA, there are always loop holes but, in my experience, the State did nothing to mitigate the outcome. In fact, when I was deposed, their lawyer said, "Well, we know the outcome, our only concern now is how little we have to pay." He was a good guy. And they paid $75,000.

        I have, in my truck to hand out to cops (and anyone else) printouts (short versions) of:
        http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opi... You have the RIGHT to video tape any person acting in an official capacity. I gave copies of the Glik decision to my County Attorney. He had never heard of it and made sure the Sheriff understood it.

        And: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 that an unconstitutional law does not have to be judged, by a court, to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional the day it is passed.

        I suggest anyone reading this go to the links, summarize the points, print them out and hand them out when appropriate. KNOWLEDGE is power and we, the people, need more of both.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
    III I am now deep into reading thsence of coe information available - and the background material - on the Rutherford Inst. which from the looks of it is a fine resource especially under the heading of Constitution.Noticing the absence of comments on the Patriot Act suspension of Civil Liberties I asked for their opinion on that subject. Meanwhile due diligence continues.

    On the face of it it appears this is one example of the one percent of law enforcement of police acting in a criminal manner and one out of a hundred is too many. one percent is the same as the number of citizens and police should be held to a higher standard.

    this problem was recognized back in the early 90's. A law requiring the nation wide information on police and police procedures and police misconduct was passed and signed by Clinton 1994. Since then he did nothing, Bush did nothing and Obama has for the first six years done nothing. What is available are largely the results of private organizations. Cato for one and Association of Chiefs of Police another.

    In the meantime the emphasis went to suspension of civil liberties under the Patriot Act.under Bush and Obama.

    Nothings going to change unless the citizens quit voting for the supporters of the fascistrpolice state.- the Government Party AKA Republicans and Democrats.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 7 months ago
    Here we go again. What is a Rutherford Institute? What were the facts if any of the incident? Gashes or just marks? Refused to consent to a warrantless search makes me want to ask for much more. Was it ín pursuit or was their a time element between the root element and the search? Given the sources I wonder why it isn't being investigated through legal channels and finally surprise surprise any time you are detained by a police officer that IS considered an arrest (per decades old Supreme Court rulings) as it takes away a citizens right of free movement. Traffic stops included. Nothing new there. Of course that ruling was based on probable cause and not on mere suspicion.

    I wish I had time to do more but instead of going all incensed I'll go to the CATO Institute which has a program in place for just such issues.

    Meanwhile I will take no position either way of this uncorroborated story.

    Except to mention when you accepted the Patriot Act without thinking it through you get what you asked for.

    How many times have you voted Democrat or Republican since then? And in doing so supported the suspension of Civil Rights and the Bill of Rights? And also did away with hthe need for probable cause and substituted mere suspicion?

    Your main complaint should be changing the Constitution without an Amendment.

    You get what you ask for and when you do nothing you deserve what you get. Welcome to the USSA.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 7 months ago
      There is a long, lingering tradition of vigilantism in the American psyche. It's fostered by TV and movie stories. We know the guy is guilty. Didn't we just see him commit the crime? Why should the cops need to go through all that crap in order to take the villain down? While they want to see the good guys take down the villains they have to be reminded that there's a difference between fiction in the form of conjecture and reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo