Illegal search and seizure

Duke426 · #1 07-23-2010, 08:07 PM

I appologize if this has been discussed before. I searched and did not find anything on it.

Heavy handed sherriff's deputies in California throw the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution right in the toilet.

HOME PAGE | KCCN.tv

oldRoger · #2 07-23-2010, 11:47 PM

A very lengthy discussion is going on about this on the sigforum. The LEO and non-LEO groups are in considerable disagreement.
At least on the surface it certainly looks to me as though a illegal search was made.

AZretired · #3 07-24-2010, 10:59 AM

Deputies acted improperly and he should get his guns back. He should sue and then move out of Kalifornia. Hope he belongs to the NRA.

ncy54 · #4 07-24-2010, 11:12 AM

Looking at the vid, IMO, Hart could have been more compliant during the initial confrontation, and the reaching for the cell phone thing was stupid and could have gotten him shot. All of that considered, Murphy and company had no business doing a house search without a warrant, which could have been secured in a timely manner.
While it seems possible that Hart had broken some local and state laws by discharging a firearm within town limits (while I don't know about California, this would be an issue in NJ, and grounds for arrest), there seems to be an overreaction once he was in custody.
Seems that Hart may have a case here.

Hunt200 · #5 07-24-2010, 11:41 AM

Those sheriffs had a plan and collaborated, if they thought it was just they wouldn't have to go over what they were going to say. They should all be fired. If they aren't suspended or fired this type of thing will get worse. No one is above the law. Those guys were nothing more than thugs.

Duke426 · #6 07-24-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncy54

Looking at the vid, IMO, Hart could have been more compliant during the initial confrontation, and the reaching for the cell phone thing was stupid and could have gotten him shot. All of that considered, Murphy and company had no business doing a house search without a warrant, which could have been secured in a timely manner.
While it seems possible that Hart had broken some local and state laws by discharging a firearm within town limits (while I don't know about California, this would be an issue in NJ, and grounds for arrest), there seems to be an overreaction once he was in custody.
Seems that Hart may have a case here.

I agree that Hart should never have reached for that cell phone - still don't understand why he did. I wonder if that would have made any difference in what happened after that.

Hunt200 · #7 07-24-2010, 01:45 PM

I agree he shouldn't have reached for the cell phone, but the one sheriff had an agenda, and everything that happened after he was in custody with the exception of making sure no one else was in danger was just plain wrong.

oldRoger · #8 07-24-2010, 01:58 PM

I have been following this on the sigforum. The consensus is that it is legal to shoot where this happened and the judge dismissed that charge at first hearing. Further, no evidence of negligent discharge has surfaced. It seems the backstop was adequate, no ricochet etc. Further the guy has been shooting there for years.
The complaint has not aired as far as I know, we don’t know if it was a 911 call, or what, or from whom.

The reach for the cell phone while the rifles were pointed at him is a mystery to all. Why LE went to rifles right out of their car is a mystery as well.

Strangely it seems that the Sheriffs Dept has done very little to defend itself, all very unusual.

NE450No2 · #9 07-24-2010, 05:32 PM

If it is legal for him to shoot in that location, and in most states it is legal to shoot on your own property if you are not in city limits, then EVERYTHING the deputies did was wrong.

If he was engaged in legal activity, they had no business "hitting" his place like they did.

Now investigating a shots fired call does warrent some concerns, but if on first contact they had asked him what he was doing, and he replied sighting in my 22 LR, it would have been easy for them to figure that out.

ALL of those Depuities should be fired, and even prosecuted for Official Opression, and I think the Det./County is in for a big law suit.

The Depts own car tapes will be the best evidence against their misconduct...

IF you cannot trust the Police, do do what is right, who can you trust???

This is just my opinion of course.

I was a LEO for over 30 years.

robertrwalsh · #10 07-25-2010, 10:09 AM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall protect us from those who protect us?)

badguybuster · #11 07-25-2010, 08:49 PM

Yikes!!! Now, that is disturbing.

oldRoger · #12 07-25-2010, 10:21 PM

Evidently all of this has been dormant for nearly two years, it seems that that LE returned 8 of 12 guns confiscated fairly promptly. When he couldn’t get the other four he sued and then all of this begins to come out of the woodwork.

All very strange, of course it is California; still you would have expected the Sheriff’s Office to be very public in justifying their actions, but nothing.

jungleman · #13 07-26-2010, 12:51 AM

I live in Michigan and I can legally shoot on my own property.
If there is no local ordinance banning shooting, and it is done safely, then the police do not have authority to stop the man. The DNR covers those matters.

AZretired · #14 07-26-2010, 01:25 AM

The guy was an idiot for the cell phone thing but the responding deputies should know if shooting is legal in the area and really seemed to overreact.

Mod27 · #15 07-27-2010, 01:19 AM

From the get-go these deputies acted like thugs. The code 3 call was for shots being fired, not for some guy innocently target shooting on his property.... so, understandably they should have had weapons ready.

But, any reasonable person could have assessed the situation in short order after they arrived. A bench-rest set up, and targets in the field, etc.

He was an idiot for going for his phone and he didn't follow their orders very well either. The deputies can justify going into the house for a look-see but, it should have stopped right there when they didn't find any bodies or a meth-lab.

They took his keys from him without justfication and opened his safe. Cracking jokes and making up reasons for the completely illegal S&S.

They should have all been fired.

Mod27 · #16 07-27-2010, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldRoger

A very lengthy discussion is going on about this on the sigforum.

As well as on calguns.net. Since the story broke, pages and pages of posts with legal aid offered up by the forum's lawyers, and even a few responses by Dan Blackburn, the guy who broke the story.

oldRoger · #17 07-27-2010, 11:21 PM

I would certainly like to know where I could find any comments or reports from the sheriff’s office or the prosecutor justifying this, especially the taking of the safe keys and the search of the safe.
I really hate to jump to conclusions and I like to see some defense put forward for these very serious charges, usually at least some part of both sides of the story is available.
I did read through a lot of pages on the calgun site but this whole episode still looks very bad to me.

NE450No2 · #18 07-28-2010, 01:41 AM

Another good reason to have a safe with only a combo dial lock...

AND you are the ONLY one with the combination.

IF you already have a safe with a key lock, get another with a Combo lock, and keep you keys in that safe...

I doubt they would have/could have gone to the trouble and expense to "get into" his safe if they did not have keys...

Their conduct might become the classic court case of Unreasonable Search and Seisure if the Citizen would press the issue.

The NRA should jump all over this.

nostraDONus · #19 07-28-2010, 12:20 PM

I still believe that the vast majority of law enforcement would not have been so heavy handed. The leader of this dog pack stated while still on the way to the call what he planned to do so no mystery as to why it turned out as it did. I wonder if there is a history there between the officer and the homeowner.

All interaction I have had with law enforcement has been positive. The only time in the past 30 years I have been pulled over was about two years ago. Female officer stopped me for a tail light that was out. When she came up I handed her my license along with my CCW card. She thanked me and asked if I was armed and if so where it was. I told her on my hip. She said that's fine and told me she thought that being armed as I was was good (my wife and kids were in the car) since you couldn't be too careful nowdays with all the bad guys running around. She said she and her husband are always armed (not just on duty). Very polite and no problems at all. She did give me a repair and report which was simple to take care of.

oldman45 · #20 08-01-2010, 03:21 PM

It is interesting to note that nothing happened to that deputy and he now has even a better job with the SO.

oldRoger · #21 08-01-2010, 11:13 PM

The guy seemed very gung-ho on the tape, if he has been promoted it is because some one in the SO likes him. It is not atypical to protect someone like that in this situation.

Maromero · #22 08-03-2010, 03:36 PM

Quote:

The LEO and non-LEO groups are in considerable disagreement.
At least on the surface it certainly looks to me as though a illegal search was made.

This is as illegal as a search can get. It lacerates the public trust of law enforcement agencies and personnel. It is disgusting.

#23 08-28-2010, 12:47 PM

This is a clear illustration of the difference between "Law Enforcement Officers" (anti-constitutional and un-American) and "Peace Officers". A Peace Officer would have arrested those Law Enforcement Officers for violating the victim's rights and thereby endangering the peace and safety of the community.

To all "LEO" types:

You have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution and enforce the law. An ordinance or statute is NOT a law if it violates any rights protected by either the United States Constitution or your State's Constitution. Further, it is NOT a law if it exceeds the legislative authority authorized by the relevant Constitution. These are established principles of American jurisprudence. If you enforce such an ordinance or statute, you are guilty of violating the arrested person's rights under color of law. By so violating your oath, you are also guilty of treason. Each of you must make a choice: you can, on the one hand, "go along to get along" and just follow orders (Nuremberg trials, anyone) or, you can preserve your honor by only enforcing the true law.

It is up to you to know the Constitution and is not difficult to do so - the entire document contains far fewer words than do most of the "laws" you are expected by your "superiors" to enforce. And, please, no "cop-outs" - do not shrug and say, "Let the courts decide." If you are intelligent enough to enforce the law, you know better than to do that. That is the way of the lazy thug.

In the long run, principles are practical. Act as a true Peace Officer and you set an example for your fellows in service. If enough of them follow your lead, the community will support all of you; your job will become safer and easier. You will also be able to hold your head high, having given yourself the most important gift of all - unblemished honor.

Out West · #24 09-03-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncy54

While it seems possible that Hart had broken some local and state laws by discharging a firearm within town limits (while I don't know about California, this would be an issue in NJ, and grounds for arrest), there seems to be an overreaction once he was in custody.
Seems that Hart may have a case here.

Fact is that the CA Judge threw out the unlawful discharge of a firearm charge.

Hart takes a misdemeanor charge to avoid prosecution for 5 felony charges. Does the misdemeanor conviction entitle the Sheriff's Dept. to keep the firearms they confiscated?

This really is distrubing. And those Deputies should be ashamed - they acted like common thugs.

Out
West