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

[stantonizm]

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-li...rd-seize-house

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqTo5...eature=related

I thought this was interesting. In the second part of the video, the officer tells the wife that if she won't consent to a search then they will seize the house until they can get a warrant. Is that legal?

[Uncle Buck]

Seem like the woman knows most of her rights. They may be able to charge her with interfering in an investigation, but with the video it could be difficult.

Interesting situation, I would be interested in seeing the outcome of this.

Watch the video, gives a different perspective of this: http://www.1011now.com/home/headline...112276319.html

This is not the first time he has been acused of doing this and the police apparently knew either of him, or him personaly.

[obxned]

"Hey buddy, nice crossbow. Are you a bowhunter? Cool. The reason I stopped by is that there is an ordinance that says shooting of bows is not allowed here, and we got a call about it. So I have to ask you to put it away and do your practicing somewhere else in the future. Okay? Thanks."

[Patriot86]

@obxned

Thats the problem with the latest generation of cops, so many seem to want to treat everyone as a victim or a criminal. They just don't know how to talk to people anymore. I know plenty of cops, old and young, I love cops and understand you have some bad apples that ruin it for them all.More and more bad apples seem to be getting through. Case in point, when I lived back in Florida I was about to pull into my driveway when out of the blue a police car comes zipping around the corner onto my street and pulls in front of me. The officer proceeds to ask me to get out of the car and go on a screaming fit for about the next 4 or 5 mins about how difficult his job is because of people like me, accusing me of speeding(Was not speeding where he accused me of speeding, radar detector never went off so obviously he was not fast enough on the draw with it) etc etc. Finally he said I was "lucky" to get a verbal warning and drove off. At all times I followed his instructions to the letter, did not do anything suspicious (Reaching for things, hands in the pocket etc) and went out of my way to act as non aggressive as possible. This officers only speed appeared to be "Aggressive jagoff". I considered filing some kind of complaint but figured it was probably not a good idea.

This one officer gave me a very low opinion of the Alachua County Fl. Sheriffs Office. It was not until I was pulled over about 2 years later( I will admit, this time I was speeding) by an unmarked ACSO squad car that that opinion was restored. The female officer spoke to me like a human being and that made all the difference. She was respectful, did not raise her voice and explained everything to me in detail and left on a good note.

[B.N.Real]

What would have been the harm in simply the lady saying to the police officer-

"Come on in,let's see what's going on in the back yard-if my husband is shooting the crossbow and it's illegal,we'll get him to stop."

"Would you all like a Coke or something?"

Instead,we get this "The Gestapo assaulted my husband,they destroyed my home-My God-this is just like what the Jews went though"." crap.

Some people seem bent on making hassle or making money out of every encounter with the law.

I don't blame the police for going in heavy-if the guy has a crossbow,who is to say he's not carrying fifteen rounds of 40 Smith in a semi auto in his belt just for good measure.

[hogdogs]

What would have been the harm in simply the lady saying to the police officer-

"Come on in,let's see what's going on in the back yard-if my husband is shooting the crossbow and it's illegal,we'll get him to stop."

Some folks opt to maintain their guaranteed rights rather than voluntarily relinquish them....

Brent

[Double Naught Spy]

Thats the problem with the latest generation of cops, so many seem to want to treat everyone as a victim or a criminal.

This sort of characterization seems to fit the latest generation of cops going back for decades. It isn't so much an issue with the generation as it is an issue with being new, inexperienced, and still figuring out how to deal with different people in different situations.

[stevelyn]

Thats the problem with the latest generation of cops, so many seem to want to treat everyone as a victim or a criminal. They just don't know how to talk to people anymore.

You should see what it's like trying to deprogram them on an FTO program.

[dusterdude]

i wonder if the police attitudes we see and/or hear about these days are about them being taught this stuff at the academies they go thru

[gc70]

I don't blame the police for going in heavy-if the guy has a crossbow,who is to say he's not carrying fifteen rounds of 40 Smith in a semi auto in his belt just for good measure.

And if you are stopped and a license check shows a concealed carry permit, should the police 'go in heavy' with you?

[armoredman]

Disturbing. I agree, don't let them inside if no warrant is present. As the old saying goes, the mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives no one the right to look.
As for showing up in force, I would have to hazard a guess that bow and arrow is NOT a common gangland weapon - I could be wrong, you never know, might be a new Robin Hood out there in Cali...Some of the comments listed as made by officers present show a HUGE gap between the old and younger attitudes, and the whole "sieze" my house? Good luck making that one stand up in court buddy - if you have demonstrable probable cause of a crime that would allow you entry, go dynamic and play ball, or follow the law and wait for a judge to sign the dotted line. Or is this a Cali thing, seizing property until we give up? Like the feds charging your car with a crime if your passenger sneaks a joint back across the border from Mexico?

Sheesh.

[Ramman911]

A half decent lawyer will get this guy off easy. Seems to be alot of ASSuming going on by the cops. They didn't catch him in the act of doing anything but trying to go inside his house.

[youngunz4life]

You give up your Constitutional rights by allowing the search. The truth is the Officer is going to search anyways if he thinks he can or should. nothing is going to be overturned later on if you consent anyways.

[pichon]

Some people seem bent on making hassle or making money out of every encounter with the law.

I don't blame the police for going in heavy-if the guy has a crossbow,who is to say he's not carrying fifteen rounds of 40 Smith in a semi auto in his belt just for good measure.

Have you ever read the bill of rights? I don't have to let them in. Anything I say can be used against me in court.

Repeat after me, "no warrant, no search", and "I don't consent to any searches."

The attorney can make a motion to suppress any evidence from any search conducted without consent or a warrant.

Most importantly, always remember, don't talk to the police. Seems extreme but it is a sound legal strategy endorsed by any attorney worth his salt. You never know what can be held against you. Even seemingly innocent chit chat has gotten people into trouble.

[40s-and-wfan]

Didn't the article already say that there was nothing wrong with shooting a bow in one's back yard?! The woman did right by videotaping everything. Sounds to me like the cops need another class on laws and procedures.
I think any half-competent lawyer would have a field-day with a case like this. What exactly did the guy do wrong? I don't see the necessity for the 'gestapo-like tactics' (my words, not anyone else's) and for the smart-a$$ attitude of a couple of the cops. I've found a few times when I was still in law enforcement that when a guy carries around a badge and a gun, he all of a sudden thinks he's in charge and knows it all.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by B.N.Real

What would have been the harm in simply the lady saying to the police officer-

"Come on in,...

What would have been the benefit?

[Conn. Trooper]

There is nothing wrong with securing a scene and applying for a warrant. I have done it before and it has held up in court. I don't threaten anyone, I just tell them that I will secure the scene (car, house, whatever) and apply for a search warrant. I never say " I WILL get a warrant" I say " I will APPLY for a warrant". Emphasis added on purpose. I believe there is probable cause, otherwise I would not pursue a warrant, but a Judge does not have to agree with me.

I didn't even read about the incident in question, I can't open the link for some reason, just speaking generally about how we do things.

[zukiphile]

Sometimes you realise that you don't know how something works because you've no experience with it and just never sought an answer for it. That is the case with me and this question.

Originally Posted by Conn.Trooper

I have done it before and it has held up in court. I don't threaten anyone, I just tell them that I will secure the scene (car, house, whatever) and apply for a search warrant.

How would you "secure" a house with someone living in it without actually entering it? Do you have a chicken/egg problem with not having the warrant to enter, but not being able to enter because you've not yet obtained a warrant?

Is there a meaningful functional difference between "securing" a home, and temporarily "seizing" it?

[Conn. Trooper]

Usually we will sweep the residence for any people that can be destroying evidence. Once everybody is out they can wait at the scene, in their car (if it's not part of the search) or wherever. Once the warrant is in hand we can enter and search, or if the warrant is denied, we don't search.

This does not happen often, usually you have plenty of PC for a search and arrive with the warrant in hand. Or you chase somebody into the house and make an arrest, no need for a warrant.

I can only recall once in the last 15 years when we secured a house and got a warrant. It was following a domestic violence arrest. While at the scene the wife told us that her husband had machine guns in the house. He was prohibited from having guns at the time because of prior court orders. He had signed a surrender firearms form swearing that he had surrendered all weapons. We attempted to interview him and he remained silent. No problem, that's his right. So, because the guns were in a room to which she did not have access and he did not consent to a search, we took a sworn written statement from the wife and applied for a warrant. The Judge issued the warrant and we searched and found a bunch of firearms including machine guns. Prior to the search he was instructed that we were applying for a warrant and that he was free to remain on scene if he wished, outside the house, and that we would let him know if the warrant was signed. Once the weapons were found we applied for an arrest warrant and he was arrested later that day.

[hogdogs]

Conn. trooper, If you want to "seize" a home, you need to "sweep" it? This means you "enter"? If that is what you mean, How do you "sweep" it if you are denied entry by the occupant?

I know little more than what my BOR tells me... If an LEO wanted to search, I would politely tell them to get a warrant and shut the door.

If that means I just created a "stand off"... so be it... Putting your head past my threshold and peeking is SEARCHING and I won't be part and party to an unwarranted search of my home...

Brent

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Conn Trooper

...usually you have plenty of PC for a search ...

That makes sense.

You may be at a disadvantage with regard to some of these questions if you can't read the story. I gather the PD received a call that a man was shooting a crossbow in his yard, they were somewhat rough with him, and after removing him from the scene, i.e. outside, wanted to search his home. The countenance of the POs ranged from agitated (maybe they'd had a call of an injured PO) to calm and polite. The wife was indoors and refused the search of the home.

[ClayInTx]

Thats the problem with the latest generation of cops, so many seem to want to treat everyone as a victim or a criminal.

By 00
This sort of characterization seems to fit the latest generation of cops going back for decades. It isn't so much an issue with the generation as it is an issue with being new, inexperienced, and still figuring out how to deal with different people in different situations

Double Naught said it pretty well. It seems to me a bit of experience on the part of the police would have caused a completely different situation.

[youngunz4life]

hogdogs(refering to your last post), I thought about that even before conn trooper's posts but it would be nice to get more info from him. If my thinking process was correct in the first place w/regards to 'seize', I saw it as they would secure the area: making sure noone came in and at very least took note of anyone leaving until the warrant was possibly attained. if they sweep the home they need probably cause, but as I mentioned earlier, you give up your rights when you consent to the search. they are going to search if they think they can or should anyways. you have a right to not consent to a search. you do not see the ones that get away with legally refusing a search during "Cops" on saturday nights. you only see the ones that allow it because they are clueless, trying to be nice, or intimidated into thinking they are doing something wrong if they say no. some of these kids have no clue- they do not need to be hassled if they donot allow it. One can respect police and the work they do without giving up their rights.

[youngunz4life]

best line of 2nd video(bottom link of OP):

"Ma'am, I don't know. We don't just go over people's houses and tackle them for no reason."

[JustThisGuy]

This all started when an officer requested ID from the husband. A number of states require everyone to provide identification on demand of LE. His refusal would thus be unreasonable if his state requires compliance to ID request.

As said earlier, it is odd that almost everyone in this story "dug in their heels" early and hard. One does not have to give up any rights in order to be considerate, kind and polite.