nuc65
Activist Member
The guy pled guilty to something, didn't get some of his arms back and I'm guessing he won't get much further because he took a plea.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Warrantless Searches
- Thread starter Sheriff
- Start date
The guy pled guilty to something, didn't get some of his arms back and I'm guessing he won't get much further because he took a plea.
All felony charges were dropped. He did plead to one misdemeanor. All guns except one AR lower were returned.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/107/377/Anatomy_of_a_Police_State_Setup_and_Coverup.html
Lots more at Calguns:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=324076
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=322376
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/107/377/Anatomy_of_a_Police_State_Setup_and_Coverup.html
Lots more at Calguns:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=324076
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=322376
So he plead guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid a felony? Everything returned except one gun? Since I believe in due process, I believe this was a case where a criminal was caught and held accountable.
I apologize that I didn't comment on this post earlier, as it was a direct attack on me (by calling me out using my name). I'm sure XDM wanted me to respond to his remarks by doing so, so to make him happy..
Well, as I mentioned above, I didn't agree with their legal tactics after a certain point of securing the man and his residence. It seemed completely legal up to that point in my opinion. With that said, I disagree with Mr. XDM (internet lawyer) on some points.
Why would the man in the video have to tell the cops they need RAS before they could search? He has NO idea what the police were told when they were responding to the scene and the police usually aren't going to share their RAS with you. You don't know what intelligence was gathered, nor do I . I venture to guess they honestly believed they had something serious going on since there were multiple officers dispatched going priority (lights/sirens).
I see in your post you believe the man should have stated "arrest me now or go away"? Do you understand the simple legal standing of being detained for RAS but not arrested (Terry). Detained to determine if a crime took place, but that doesn't mean you are under arrest. Nor would the police have to "arrest him or go away" hahahahahahahaha. That is 4th amendment class 101.
Wait, wait, you contradict yourself.... so he should have told them they need RAS and asked questions, or he should have asked for a lawyer and remained silent? You can't do both. You sound like an ignorant internet poster with NO formal legal training or experience...am I wrong? If I am wrong, we would all like you to share what formal training, education, and/or experience you have. That is not an attack on you, it's merely pointing out that you aren't USER and shouldn't post legal standings unless you want to use cites. I don't post up legal stuff that I know nothing about unless I back it with laws. You continue to do so which poorly gives misguided information to visitors of the site and reflects badly upon yourself.
In my earlier post I agreed that the police crossed the line towards the end, where they went into a locked safe. XDM seems to think they crossed the line when they went to the property, which I disagree. If he wants to prove that, I will allow him to explain how they crossed the line explaining what laws they crossed and how.
PS...funny that the administrator had to call out XDM because he changes words when quoting others.
Last edited:
Thundar
Regular Member
My gunsafe has a keypad for this very reason.
No, he was charged with a misdemeanor and plead guilty. All felony charges were dropped. There's a difference.
CA has a bad habit of trying to confiscate ANY AR-style weapon or lower(as in this case). He may still get it back as efforts are ongoing.
So the felony charges were dismissed at a motion hearing prior to the actual trial? It's routine for felony charges to be dropped (nolle prossed) and avoided only because a plea agreement was reached and the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
Do you know what the actual charges were?
Jonesy
Regular Member
I like how you say "Most likely they would be able to articulate going into his house for a "security sweep". So what are you suggesting, they can think up some bs after the fact for breaking into his house and searching it without warrants to do so? You sound like the deputies on the second video ex post facto trying to come up with some bs exigent circumstances. If you think the facts here present exigent circumstances to break into the house, YOU need retraining. The man is in a rural area and was doing nothing wrong. Detaining him for a short time to investigate may be ok if and only if they had RAS, but breaking into his house and searching with no reason to do so is way over the line. You try something like that with me and I will hire lawyers to sue you and hopefully bankrupt you.
This is funny, because when I was 18 and lived on a similar rural property and was target shooting my .22, my pos neighbor called the police. Local police showed up and I was still shooting, they came down the driveway, did not disarm me or point guns at me, and 5 minutes later they were watching me shoot at targets, with my pos neighbor watching. And they certainly didn't break into my house and illegally search it.
When someone is acting in a legal manner on their own property, they should not be subject to such horrible treatment by police. The fishing expedition into the mans house should result in disciplinary action if not firing. The fact that you think such actions are defensable says alot.
Last edited:
Jonesy
Regular Member
Interesting the officer is also an attorney and tries to defend his actions.
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/12/san-luis-obispo-sheriff-deputys-playboy-rebuttal/
http://calcoastnews.com/2010/12/san-luis-obispo-sheriff-deputys-playboy-rebuttal/
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
Why don't you read it again. What I posted is in red.
Last edited:
+1 (wish there was a hand clapping little smiley thing....)
Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
Here you go
Marco
Regular Member
Just, today ( about 530p) I had to inform local Sheriff and a few others regarding trespassing on my property.
The Sheriff was very polite and totally understood, he and the persons with the search dogs quickly removed themselves.
The conversation is on DVR as a CYA.
THE Sheriff WAS FULLY AWARE I WAS RECORDING AS THE DVR WAS IN MY HAND.
I politely imformed them they were free to search the areas I don't own but if they wanted to search my property (wooded area) they would need a search warrant.
Yes, I was openly armed the whole time and there was no discussion about my firearm.
This isn't the first time as I've had several LEO's from several areas searching the areas near our home, they even had divers in the water.
The Sheriff was very polite and totally understood, he and the persons with the search dogs quickly removed themselves.
The conversation is on DVR as a CYA.
THE Sheriff WAS FULLY AWARE I WAS RECORDING AS THE DVR WAS IN MY HAND.
I politely imformed them they were free to search the areas I don't own but if they wanted to search my property (wooded area) they would need a search warrant.
Yes, I was openly armed the whole time and there was no discussion about my firearm.
This isn't the first time as I've had several LEO's from several areas searching the areas near our home, they even had divers in the water.
Last edited:
The video said he plead no contest to the charges to avoid felony ones. I wish he had fought all the charges but most people with a public defender will accept a plea, guilty or not, to avoid the possibility of doing hard time. Not too many of us have backbone anymore.
Maybe you should read "Three Felonies a Day". While it's subject matter is Federal Law it's content on plea deals is spot on.
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Default.aspx
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Your state does not have an open fields exception to the warrant clause? Meaning, off your curtilage?
Cool!
Last edited:
Marco
Regular Member
According to the Attorney I spoke with, curtilage is the area in which I have an expectation of privacy and which I maintain.
My yard isn't fenced but it is posted and the dogs have free roam.
I just spent almost a month clearing out the wooded (under growth) area for a play yard.
Just for the record they aren't here for me or mine.
As a CMA I have VR's and DVR's already running, as well as some other things if things go bad.
This afternoon they are focusing on the property across the road, they even have shovels.
Last edited:
Jonesy
Regular Member
My understanding from school of the open fields doctrine is it allows materials found in a warrantless search on private property outside the curtilage of your home to be admissable, in that you do not have an expectation of privacy in open fields, but you should still be able to tell police to get off your property.
Last edited:
Jonesy
Regular Member
Regarding your assertion Novacop that you think the entry into the house was justified (not even considering the entry into the safe), what objective facts are there that created such exigent circumstances? Did the sheriffs have any reason to believe that there was some kind of emergency circumstances INSIDE the house? Was there circumstances that would give a reasonable officer reason to believe someone was injured or that evidence of a crime was being destroyed? I am sure that you already know due to your extensive training that for the destruction of evidence exigent circumstances to apply. there must be evidence that destructible evidence is in the home and the officers must have reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if they delay in getting a warrant.
Was there a threat to officer safety after they had secured the man? Iif they thought they needed to go in the residence, why could they not get a warrant? Do you think a judge would give a warrant?
Now I understand that you were not there and the officers may have had additional facts that we are unaware of, but you seem to think they can justify entry based on exigent circumstances, some please educate me, maybe you picked up something I missed. BTW, do you think it is proper officer conduct for the officers to try to come up with reasons for the warrantless entry into his home after the fact due to the man telling them that he may file a complaint?
Was there a threat to officer safety after they had secured the man? Iif they thought they needed to go in the residence, why could they not get a warrant? Do you think a judge would give a warrant?
Now I understand that you were not there and the officers may have had additional facts that we are unaware of, but you seem to think they can justify entry based on exigent circumstances, some please educate me, maybe you picked up something I missed. BTW, do you think it is proper officer conduct for the officers to try to come up with reasons for the warrantless entry into his home after the fact due to the man telling them that he may file a complaint?
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hmmmmm. Interesting. I guess curtilage is a complicated area of law. It seems to me I've seen case law in so many words saying that areas that are part of daily life are part of the definition. As though, just maintaining an area would not be enough to call it curtilage. A field is maintained by way of cultivation, weed and pest killing, rotation of crops, etc. So, I guess there is more for me to learn. Although this rule pretty much covers it:
Some cops is gonna go where ever they want, whenever they want and let a judge sort it out later. And, plenty of judges will use a results-oriented basis for deciding--meaning there is a reasonable chance the judge will find a creative way to twist the law in support of the copses.
Last edited:
Jonesy
Regular Member
The U.S. Supreme Court noted in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987), that curtilage is the area immediately surrounding a residence that "harbors the `intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'' ''[A]n individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home.'' Nor may an individual demand privacy for activities conducted within outbuildings and visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just outside."United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (space immediately outside a barn, accessible only after crossing a series of ''ranch-style'' fences and situated one-half mile from the public road, constitutes unprotected ''open field'').
In Dunn, the Court identified four factors that should be
considered when determining the extent of a home's curtilage:
1) The distance from the home to the place claimed to be
curtilage (the nearer the area to the home, the more likely that
it will be found to lie within the curtilage);
2) Whether the area claimed to be curtilage is included
within an enclosure surrounding the home (inclusion within a
common enclosure will make it more likely that a particular area
is part of the curtilage);
3) The nature of use to which the area is put (if it is the
site of domestic activities, it is more likely to be a part of
the curtilage); and
4) The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from
observation by people passing by (areas screened from the view
are more likely a portion of the curtilage).
The Court urged the use of these four factors as a guide in
assessing whether the ``area in question is so intimately tied to
the home itself that it should be placed under the home's
`umbrella' of Fourth Amendment protection.''
In Dunn, the Court identified four factors that should be
considered when determining the extent of a home's curtilage:
1) The distance from the home to the place claimed to be
curtilage (the nearer the area to the home, the more likely that
it will be found to lie within the curtilage);
2) Whether the area claimed to be curtilage is included
within an enclosure surrounding the home (inclusion within a
common enclosure will make it more likely that a particular area
is part of the curtilage);
3) The nature of use to which the area is put (if it is the
site of domestic activities, it is more likely to be a part of
the curtilage); and
4) The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from
observation by people passing by (areas screened from the view
are more likely a portion of the curtilage).
The Court urged the use of these four factors as a guide in
assessing whether the ``area in question is so intimately tied to
the home itself that it should be placed under the home's
`umbrella' of Fourth Amendment protection.''