Posted on 04/05/2010 4:16:34 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
Police trying to locate someone on a bench warrant search a woman's house without her consent. They produce no warrant - bail agent says he does not need one. She repeatedly denies them permission to enter. Some of the police enter through a back door also. The person they were looking for was not there. She said he did not live there. Not sure if he had listed that address or not.
In the state of Washington opening your door can be (and often is) considered by the cops to be an invitation to enter. Your best bet is to speak through the door like she did. Too bad she didn’t have a more secure back door.
In my home the person who illegally entered through the back door would be lying in a pool of his own blood and I would either be dead or in jail...
This is in Kah-lee-Fawn-ee-ahh, and they are required to obtain permission and that other dweeb without LEO credentials doesn’t belong on her side yard her front lawn.
Lawyer up.
Feel free to illuminate us with your knowledge.
That dweeb still has no right to enter her house.
Thing is I am wondering why she didn’t dial 911?
It should come with the obligatory disclaimer. But, hey, who cares? You are getting hits, right?
Post on.
Come on....”a pack of fascistic [sic] pigs.” Isn’t that something the lefties would say?
Guess I’m naive....my first question is what was the guy arrested for and bonded out on?
It wouldn’t matter if she is a nut job! Barge into my home that way and you’ll meet Mr. Mossberg!
“Whatever nOOb. The title of the Post is itself misleading and purposely so. I am not putting the post in for ZOT but wouldn’t surprise me if happened”
Check links before posting ignorant, blovaiting crap like that please.
And his cousin Kimber.
Hell, the department of education has guns now! The mailman may be packing by next week!
Yeh, she knows people involved but that doesn’t excuse what happened.
The thread is linked to a youtube video. And he posted in the comment section the question: "What is the word on this? Did the police have a right to search her house. Interesting video."
How is that "purposely misleading"?
Repo people? You know that if you finance a car it belongs to the bank, right? Its not yours. And if you don’t pay, they should take it back.
It all depends if the house was used as collateral for bail and the condition of the bond if there is a default, as there was in this case...The more I look at this the more I believed we are being fooled...
As for the Deputies...that a matter for the Courts.
I’m not so certain she has a case to sue. If she signed an agreement with the bail bond company to gain access to her property, all bets are off. They may have been within their right to search her property because in this event she would have given them permission when she posted bail. Yeah, I know it looks bad, but I think it’s mostly because she’s making it look bad. The biggest mistake being committed here is a lack of professionalism. These guys are very arrogant, to say the least, but probably aren’t doing anything illegal. I withhold judgement though until I know all the facts. It’s easy to play victim to zealous cops in our society.
>>If they were bailbondsmen they can do as they please with no warrant.<<
Where in the hell did you ever get this idea? It’s a good way to get yourself shot if you are a bail-bondsmen. You have to have reasonable suspicion that your runner is in the house. That means you have to know that he’s in the house, not just hope he’s in there.
“I am armed and will shoot to protect my home”.
You do that. Obviously, many here would agree with you, however, as unfortunate as it may seem, legal entry to your home is not always by way of invitation. If the woman was believed to be harboring a fugitive who’d skipped after being charged with, oh let’s say, some disgusting crime against one of your loved ones, you might be singing a different tune and grateful for that “pack of fascistic pigs” who were going after the suspect. That’s all I’m saying.
California Penal Code
842. An arrest by a peace officer acting under a warrant is lawful even though the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, but if the person arrested so requests it, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.
http://supremelaw.org/cc/aol2/roddy/pc.837.htm
Deeb is stil wrong, wrong, wrong. He did not identify the person as actually being in the house. Therefore no lawful reason to enter.
Further, the bondsman nor the deputies can go searching through the house, randomly, looking for whatever.
Other bondsmen carry their paperwork with them to support their case but, still without positvely identifying the bail jumper as currently being in the house, the law is on the woman’s side.
Same goes for the deputies. No probable cause.
Back to Constitution and California Constitution which says basically the same thing.
There is not and would not be a contract giving anyone random authority to search the domain.
Amazing! They didn’t shoot either her or any dog!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.