It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unlawful entry "I do not need a warrant"

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
First off this is not my video, I stumbled across it and had a few reactions, and questions that I would like to share.






Sheriff's busted into my private home at approx 6 am on Tuesday March 30, 2010. They banged on the door and yelled "Open up... Kern County Sheriff" etc.. for about 4-5 minutes.. I was alone and they were looking for Joe, the man they beat up on the roadside a few months ago in Bakersfield, California. (see video "Joe Police Brutality on my channel" They said they had a warrant but when I demanded to see it, they then retracted their statement and said "We don't NEED a warrant!!"


So is this a sate loophole, or are they simply breaking the law? I've always been under the impression you need a court approved warrant to search somebodies home.

So I looked it up and found this.




(A) A warrant is executed by arresting the defendant. Upon arrest, an officer possessing the warrant must show it to the defendant. If the officer does not possess the warrant, the officer must inform the defendant of the warrant's existence and of the offense charged and, at the defendant's request, must show the warrant to the defendant as soon as possible.


Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

So this would seem to suggest its legal to not possess a physical copy of the warrant. I assume this would also cover bench warrants.

As I see it, there is nothing stopping individuals from dressing up and taking advantage of this. We do not know those were cops for sure, they did not show proper identification, no warrant, and that's legal? They could of done a lot more to that poor woman than just give her a bad time.

I know there are some ex police officers around here, and I would love your experienced opinion on this.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simplified


I know there are some ex police officers around here, and I would love your experienced opinion on this.



Don't bother. Every time one these threads comes up the cops or former cops state how over exaggerated the problem is, that there is little corruption in law enforcement across the country, and that most cops are perfectly nice people.

I have yet meet a cop who will admit that there is a serious problem of corruption in law enforcement and the simple reason for this is that the cops who do choose to speak out against their colleagues are either ignored, reprimanded, or sacked.

It's disgusting, really. I've never been in the presence of police and ever felt safe because of it. Never.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Don't bother. Every time one these threads comes up the cops or former cops state how over exaggerated the problem is, that there is little corruption in law enforcement across the country, and that most cops are perfectly nice people.


Well they can say all they would like about the convictions of their fellow officers, I dont care; I'm more interested in their interpretation on the laws, and if this is common procedure. also, I would like to believe that those on ats are slightly more morally defined than some of the other cops out there.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I could only get through about 3 minutes of this. I get the title now. And the guy is right, to an extent. A bail enforcement agent is a freakin bounty hunter. And no, they don't need warrants to search the home of the person that jumped bail. If that woman doesn't want to have her home searched by a bounty hunter then she shouldn't have those folks living there. If they didn't live there, and that bounty hunter had a wrong address, she should have shot his ass and defended her property.


The POLICE in this matter, wow. They should have never entered the house. They fall under different rules. They can escort the bounty hunter to the house, and provide backup, but never should have entered the house without a threat to the bounty hunter. I'd say this woman has serious grounds to sue.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
See I would have not answered the door and when they came in I would have shot them. I know people will say jail, and rambo. But you know what people coming into my house illegally will be killed instantly and without remorse.

Then if they come after me I guess the question would be how much damage could I cause before they take me down?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Lol

"You got served"

"What? I don't have to accept anything, i don't even know what your serving!"


Crazy though, I woulda pulled out a can of whoop ass, but not really.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
DO NOT EVER OPEN THE DOOR FOR A POLICE OFFICER.

it doesnt matter if they tell you they have a warrent signed by president obama, if they DID they wouldn't be KNOCKING on the door they would be KICKING IT DOWN.


this is a common thing called a "tap and wrap". police are TRAINED LIARS. if they get you to open the door it changes the rules of the situation.

if a police officer knocks on the door. lock it. if they have a warrent, the door will be broken off the hinges and guys with guns will come running in.

i repeat. NEVER....EEEVVEERRRRR....open the door for a police officer....not even if theres an "emergency" and he needs to use the phone/bathroom/whatever.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by LurkerMan]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I am so ashamed of what the sheriff's just did in the name of law.

These men don't represent us. These men are criminals!


These men don't even represent our country or our United States Constitution.

When the gov spends itself into oblivion, common law will have standing and there is no statue of limitations.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TaxpayersUnleashed]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Sickening. The women screwed up though by opening the door. She did well video taping though. The jack ass saying he didn't need a warrant would should have been shot. Those fackers are going to do that to the wrong house one of these days.

i



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I wonder if you could use the "I don't have to accept that." line when a CHP tries to give you a ticket.?



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
The Sheriff Deputy said he had a bench warrant. However, the Bail Enforcement Agent doesn't need one and can make entry. They have more authority that any law enforcement officer in pursuing a fugitive (bail jumper in this case). One thing people don't often read the fine print when signing for a bail bondsman to get someone out of jail because that paper says that you give them the right to search any address you list as where you are staying. Even then, if they have good reason to believe the fugitive is in a building they have the right to make entry to try to apprehend the fugitive. That is where State laws may differ concerning what bail enforcement agents can do. In certain states, a bail agent must bring a Sheriff Deputy with them, and in some the bail agent has to identify the target location and let the Sheriff go after the fugitive. That is how it is in Florida.

Now the lady made some errors in what she was saying and the officers/agents knew that as well. I suspect the Sheriff Deputies did have a bench warrant because the guy didn't show up for court. That would have the bail bondsman call in a Bail Enforcement Agent to hunt the fugitive down before he ends up having to be out the total bail amount for the fugitive not showing up for court. They usually are given a short amount of time to provide the fugitive to the court before having to make good on the bond amount.

I don't know, but I have a feeling the back door was open (unlocked) and she opened the front door before anything happened like busting in. A door being locked is a lot different in terms of legality than an unlocked door or an open door. The lady saying things like, "You've been served" only made them realize she didn't know her legal terms, etc. She didn't have any legal papers to serve for one thing, and a process server would need to serve them for it to hold up in court. A few comments like that and they will run all over your rights because they know you don't know them. It is like when you get out of your car during a traffic stop, you should lock your doors (windows closed) because they are not allowed to search a locked compartment without a warrant unless someone was in danger. Now, if you have a warrant or something and they arrest you, your car can be searched incident to arrest. Knowing your law and terminology is the only way you can hold your ground with police. They know most people don't know the law and use it to their advantage. They are allowed to lie to you in pursuit of their investigation, so don't believe everything they say just because you think they can't lie or bend the truth.

They may try to say you’re obstructing their investigation by locking your doors, but that is just a lie to get you to voluntarily open the door for them. Otherwise they would have to get a warrant, which they can do over the radio or phone if they were that determined.

And the last thing is that they don't need anything with the Patriot Act. They can search your house with no warrant, day or night, even when you’re not there, and they don't even need to admit it. You might call the police to report someone broke in your house, and the whole time it was the FBI or someone with any particular agency and the police won't tell you what happened either. The Patriot Act has changed the game big time.

And if you knew how many times a week officers are threatened with being fired or sued, you would realize that they are not worried in the least. It does more to irritate them and may make them get petty just to irritate you back. You heard them threaten to arrest the lady once or twice because, and I am guessing, they would say she was opposing an officer or hindering their investigation. At the end, the officer that kept telling her to back away from him was about to lock her up, but the other higher ranking deputy came around back and called him to come on. Otherwise, that younger deputy might have locked her up for some frivolous charge like opposing an officer or failing to follow lawful orders. They have plenty of laws that they can throw on you if they are so inclined. I do think something like that would have happened if not for the video camera running. That was a smart move by the lady being confronted at 6:30 in the morning. I would have been too groggy to think to grab my video camera. I think I need to put a few web cams around the house and have the record on my server, where the recording goes over the same disk space every 72 hours or so. That way you could have video and audio in every room as they run all over the house. You can't keep track on all of them by yourself. That would provide proof in the unlikely event you get a bad cop planting something, or doing something illegal.

Unless the people vote in new leaders, take back our government and put an end to the police state, things like this will only happen more and more. Like I said, they really don't need a warrant thanks to the Patriot Act. That is the first law that needs repealed if you don't like the law being able to do things without warrants and checks and balances.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Simplified
 


I believe the definition you posted is that for an arrest warrant, or bench warrant and not for a search warrant. They are two different things. If you have a warrant out for your arrest, the arresting officer does not need to show it to you upon arrest.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Very amusing video.

I'm sure that this was not the first visit that the Sheriff has ever made to this house. I don't see a problem. I think the problem lies with the jumper they were trying to apprehend. If the sheriff was accompanying the bail agent, I am sure that they were anticipating some trouble beyond what the bail officer could potentially handle.

The woman had her camera at the ready and a handy letter to hand out to the Deputy. No telling how long they were knocking before she turned her camera on.
Notice all of the letters/ramblings taped to the front door.
The cherry on the Sundae is the freaky old school bus/tenement on wheels parked in the driveway.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
To me, it is cut and dry... Rule #1.) You enter my home without my permission - you will be shot! Period! The ONLY exception to Rule #1 is a valid, legal warrant being served that states explicitly the right of the LEO to enter the home. I recommend that they knock FIRST, display the warrant and they will be permitted legal entry into my home without delay. Any other tactic WILL result in people being shot - refer to Rule #1!



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I am Jack's overwhelming rage.


Not in my house. Be advised, there is a castle law in Texas...People dress up as cops and kick doors in around DFW all the time.

Drug cartels have been doing it for years, and to people that have no involvement whatsoever. It is in a police officers best interest to produce any identification requested...especially an unculpable civilian.

"Civilian" is evolving into "Non-combatant" in America.


Originally posted by LurkerMan
DO NOT EVER OPEN THE DOOR FOR A POLICE OFFICER.

it doesnt matter if they tell you they have a warrent signed by president obama, if they DID they wouldn't be KNOCKING on the door they would be KICKING IT DOWN.


this is a common thing called a "tap and wrap". police are TRAINED LIARS. if they get you to open the door it changes the rules of the situation.

if a police officer knocks on the door. lock it. if they have a warrent, the door will be broken off the hinges and guys with guns will come running in.

i repeat. NEVER....EEEVVEERRRRR....open the door for a police officer....not even if theres an "emergency" and he needs to use the phone/bathroom/whatever.





Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by becomingaware]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
I am so ashamed of what the sheriff's just did in the name of law.

These men don't represent us. These men are criminals!


These men don't even represent our country or our United States Constitution.

When the gov spends itself into oblivion, common law will have standing and there is no statue of limitations.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TaxpayersUnleashed]


Correct.

Due to local and state budget crisis, or whatever, the police have moved from "to serve and protect" to being nothing more than predators.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I can understand her frustration, but if that guys is a BEA, he actually has every legal right to enter and search that house, with or without her permission. He's undoubtedly been there before and/or talked to that woman before, or someone from the bondsman he's working for's office. Whether or not the cops can accompany him in or not depends on the state. From what I've researched (I'm looking into becoming a BEA - actually seems like a pretty interesting career) a bail officer will almost always go to the location in question and attempt to enter/search with their own team. Only if they are met with difficulty from the occupants will they call in the cops to assist with the search, or if it's required by their state laws. So, depending on where they lived, that whole thing could have been perfectly legal. How they treated her was inexcusable, but if she had just opened the door the first time they'd knocked - and trust me, they'd been knocking for at least a few minutes to have sent someone around back to yell at her and be knocking that loudly - the whole thing would have most likely been avoided. They would have explained what they were doing, that the BEA had the right to search for the jumper, and things MIGHT have gone smoother, depending on her demeanor. I am 100% for personal privacy, but bail agents aren't cops. They don't have the power to react to any crime they witness, they can only arrest the person they have the warrant for. Letting them search your home is 100% irrelevant unless you're hiding the person they're looking for. And they always knock and attempt to present proper ID and paperwork to the head of the household before entering. However, if they're relatively sure their man is inside, they will enter with force after a while if necessary. I'm sure there are cases of people being seriously screwed over in this situation, but it seems to me this woman was being intentionally difficult in a simple situation. She refused to answer the door even though they clearly knew she was home, she kept demanding answers to questions that had already been answered, and was generally dramatic about the whole thing. I can guarantee the BEA had the arrest warrant and related papers in his vehicle. It just goes to show me that the more people resist, shout or refuse to open their door, the more likely any LEO or other official is to be suspicious and start a situation. In my experience, if you truly have nothing to hide, at least give them the time of day, and it they have warrants/just cause/the wrong address then just comply. They aren't there to 'get you' unless you've done something wrong, and if you're generally cooperative they'll generally leave you alone once they've done their job. I think a lot of these 'cop abuse' stories are slightly skewed - you never know what the situation is, you just see the brief video from that person's standpoint. For all anyone knows they could have been there for an hour, having visited three other times, posting warrants and notices, just trying to get this woman to comply, and she simply refused. They have to do their jobs, unfortunately. If she had just opened the door, they would have searched through quickly, realized he wasn't there, and left.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
I can understand her frustration, but if that guys is a BEA, he actually has every legal right to enter and search that house, with or without her permission.


No, probably not. I say that conditionally, however, because I don't know the full story, who owns the house, or what connection she has to the person they're looking for. But I say this because the bounty hunter seems to working in cooperation with the police.

The reason why the rules are not the same for bounty hunters as they are for police officers is because bounty hunters are considered private actors where police officers are considered state actors, so the full protection granted by the 4th amendment doesn't extend in the case of bounty hunters.

However -- and a BIG however -- the U.S. Supreme Court in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982), has ruled that where a private actor (like a bounty hunter) has received quote, "significant aid" from, or "acted together" with police officers, they themselves may be considered state actors. Does the attorney she's spoken to know about this case? I don't know.



Our cases have accordingly insisted that the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the State. These cases reflect a two-part approach to this question of "fair attribution." First, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible. In Sniadach, Fuentes, W. T. Grant, and North Georgia, for example, a state statute provided the right to garnish or to obtain prejudgment attachment, as well as the procedure by which the rights could be exercised. Second, the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor. This may be because he is a state official, because he has acted together with or has obtained significant aid from state officials , or because his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State. Without a limit such as this, private parties could face constitutional litigation whenever they seek to rely on some state rule governing their interactions with the community surrounding them.


Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co.


edit on 5-9-2011 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by IamCorrect
 



As opined in Taylor v. Taintor, and barring restrictions applicable state by state, a bounty hunter can enter the fugitive's private property without a warrant in order to execute a re-arrest. They cannot, however, enter the property of anyone other than the fugitive without a warrant or the owner's permission.


Bounty Hunter Wiki

If he had reason to believe it was the home of the person in question, he can enter. If not (i.e. friend or relative's house) then you are right, he's totally out of line. Totally depends on the situation. And state law. If they're in Kentucky the whole thing's illegal, bail enforcement is illegal there.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexbassguy
reply to post by IamCorrect
 



As opined in Taylor v. Taintor, and barring restrictions applicable state by state, a bounty hunter can enter the fugitive's private property without a warrant in order to execute a re-arrest. They cannot, however, enter the property of anyone other than the fugitive without a warrant or the owner's permission.


Bounty Hunter Wiki

If he had reason to believe it was the home of the person in question, he can enter. If not (i.e. friend or relative's house) then you are right, he's totally out of line. Totally depends on the situation. And state law. If they're in Kentucky the whole thing's illegal, bail enforcement is illegal there.


No; this case is different because he acted together with police, and was aided by them. Did you actually bother to read my post?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join