Texas Sheriffs Raid, Search, Seize, & Arrest of Homeowner Who Refused Consent to Warrantless Search
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago to Government
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...
Additional link to the source: https://www.rutherford.org/publicatio...
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.
Exactly. There is no incentive when in one is immune to the repercussions the rest of us mere plebes must be bound by.
Regards,
O.A.
It has more to do with gaining respect from police for the homes and rights of citizens. Remove their immunity.
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.
The additional shame is the desensitizing the general public is going through. The frequency of stories like this is such that you could catalog them and fill volumes. It is almost as if it is a concerted effort, when you consider along with them the expansion of military tactics and hardware... The public is being conditioned to ignore these abuses... What will big brother do next?
Respectfully,
O.A.
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.
those civilians can get vindicated in court.
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, more than ever, we all need to be informed.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, ...it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
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.
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.
This is the background of the Rutherford Institute which has taken the legal case and originally posted the article:
https://www.rutherford.org/about
https://www.rutherford.org/about/hist...