Illegal Search?

[CJKarl]

There are 2 sides to every story. And it sounds as if this woman's husband is no angel, but is this SOP? I know there are different laws for bond recovery, but to me it seemed like an illegal search. Who knows where those guys could have been rummaging around/planting stuff. I'm generally 90% on the cops side, but sometimes they forget who they are trying to protect.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=621_1270344144

 

[Martlet]

Good on her. I hope she follows through with it. What state was that?

 

[AppleSeeds]

Kern country is in Kalifornia according to Google.

Such disgusting disregard for the law.

 

[AppleSeeds]

Another link with more:

http://www.kget.com/mostpopular/sto...launches-internal/V6wT6LFFpke93tb_h6XCLg.cspx

Maybe it's not a bad idea to leave a cheapie digital camera that can do video by the front door.

 

[Lamina]

My blood boils when I see something like this. Were it me in her shoes things would have ended much worse, for everybody.

 

[Palladin]

IIRC, Cali is one of the few states who allow bail agents to operate. They have to notify the local PD; I don't think they're allowed to operate in MA at all.

 

[Kicker96FS]

She should have called 911 and get this on the 911 call tape as well and get the local PD out there to see this warrant.

I too hope she sues the sheriffs dept.

 

[theGringo]

Interesting. A Sheriff's deputy states, at 1:44 and again around 3:30 "You opened the door, ma'am", as if this obviates the need for a warrant to enter and search. Looks like some state-sponsored thuggery here. But I ... wouldn't want to seem ... negative toward law enforcement.

 

[joehaus]

IIRC, Cali is one of the few states who allow bail agents to operate. They have to notify the local PD; I don't think they're allowed to operate in MA at all.

Yes they do operate in MA.

Here is an interesting case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vol=sjcslip/14777&invol=1

 

[Beck]

Shouldn't have opened the door and should have called 911 to report unwanted persons, the outcome may have been different. Not a fan of anytype of bail enforcement agents

 

[joehaus]

Not a fan of anytype of bail enforcement agents

Show up for your court date and you won't have a problem.

 

[theGringo]

Show up for your court date and you won't have a problem.

Sure. Just ask Randy Weaver about that one.

 

[mass]

I'm actually suprised they didn't take the camera from her.

 

[cricco]

I'm a sovereign woman! LOL. Classic. She won't follow up on anything, because she has nothing to follow up on. They had a warrant, and assuming it was the residence of the subject of the warrant, they have every right to search for him. We really don't even know what the guy is wanted for. Maybe he's a murderer. Perhaps he's a child rapist. As another poster said, Show up for court, and stop committing crimes, and the Po Po won't have to toss your house looking for you.

 

[joehaus]

Sure. Just ask Randy Weaver about that one.

I wasn't aware Lon Horiuchi was a bail bondsman.

 

[theGringo]

I wasn't aware Lon Horiuchi was a bail bondsman.

No. He was an assassin. Weaver definitely took it a bit harder than the poor slob in the video, but it all started with a failure to appear. As far as denial of constitutional rights, it's just a matter of degree. You can decide where you want to draw the line.

Someone will be prosecuted for what happened here, and hopefully the video victim will get a better shake than Weaver did.

 

[weekendracer]

I'm a sovereign woman! LOL. Classic. She won't follow up on anything, because she has nothing to follow up on. They had a warrant, and assuming it was the residence of the subject of the warrant, they have every right to search for him. We really don't even know what the guy is wanted for. Maybe he's a murderer. Perhaps he's a child rapist. As another poster said, Show up for court, and stop committing crimes, and the Po Po won't have to toss your house looking for you.

Authorities were looking for Joseph Baker who was arrested for battery on a peace officer in September. They were also looking for a man named Alan Gjurovich because he co-signed on Baker's bail bond which Baker forfeited by not showing up in court. Gjurovich is in hiding but spoke to 17 News by phone. He said the sheriff's department is trying to stop him from filing a lawsuit against the county that could damage county judge and clerks' credibility.


He hit a cop at best, at worst actually did some damage. Since he didn't show up, he was found guilty in absense more than likely (I'm sure there's some groovy legaleese for that).

Is there some document you sign away rights when you post bond? Similiar to felons on probation kinda thing?

 

[theGringo]

I'm a sovereign woman! LOL. Classic. She won't follow up on anything, because she has nothing to follow up on. They had a warrant, and assuming it was the residence of the subject of the warrant, they have every right to search for him. We really don't even know what the guy is wanted for. Maybe he's a murderer. Perhaps he's a child rapist. As another poster said, Show up for court, and stop committing crimes, and the Po Po won't have to toss your house looking for you.

Did you check out the link in Post #4?

 

[cricco]

Is there some document you sign away rights when you post bond? Similiar to felons on probation kinda thing?

Ummm. Yeah. You promise to appear in court, OR ELSE. Forfeiting your bond isn't paying for your freedom. The money is simply a measure taken to ensure that you will appear in court.

 

[joehaus]

No. He was an assassin.

No kidding. Was my comment that ambiguous that you didn't realize I was talking about bail agents? To directly comment on another poster saying he "wasn't a fan of any type of bail agent" I have no sympathy for anyone who enters into an agreement with a bail bondsman, then skips out on his obligation to show up for court. Game on as far as I'm concerned.

It's hard to argue your constitutional rights are violated when the only reason you're not incarcerated is because of a bail bondsman putting up big bucks.

Please don't bring what happened at Ruby Ridge into this because it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

 

[theGringo]

No kidding. Was my comment that ambiguous that you didn't realize I was talking about bail agents? To directly comment on another poster saying he "wasn't a fan of any type of bail agent" I have no sympathy for anyone who enters into an agreement with a bail bondsman, then skips out on his obligation to show up for court. Game on as far as I'm concerned.

It's hard to argue your constitutional rights are violated when the only reason you're no incarcerated is because of a bail bondsman putting up big bucks.

Please don't bring what happened at Ruby Ridge into this because it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

cricco said it for you:

Yeah. You promise to appear in court, OR ELSE.

It's the "or else" part that needs some elucidation. Or else we'll execute a warrantless search on everyone you know? Or else we'll beat you up? Or else we'll kill your wife and kid?

It was a failure to appear. It's not at all clear that any warrant existed to enter and search (see link in Post #4). But clearly, no warrant was shown, and the bail guy said he didn't need one.

One doesn't have to sympathise with a bail jumper to object to the trammeling of the constitutional rights of the bail jumpers family. And in this instance, the nature of the offense is irrelevant. If you can suspend the constitution for bail jumping, then what else can you do?

 

[Half Cocked]

A warrant for your body is in essence a warrant to also search your residence for your body. It allows a search of YOUR residence only.

 

[joehaus]

cricco said it for you:



It's the "or else" part that needs some elucidation. Or else we'll execute a warrantless search on everyone you know? Or else we'll beat you up? Or else we'll kill your wife and kid?

It was a failure to appear. It's not at all clear that any warrant existed to enter and search (see link in Post #4). But clearly, no warrant was shown, and the bail guy said he didn't need one.

One doesn't have to sympathise with a bail jumper to object to the trammeling of the constitutional rights of the bail jumpers family. And in this instance, the nature of the offense is irrelevant. If you can suspend the constitution for bail jumping, then what else can you do?

I never commented on the video because I can't see it at work. I have no idea what the specific circumstances are in regards to entering property or who is or isn't justified. Nor did I imply anything like that. It was just a comment about how to avoid the troubles of a bail bondsman hunting you down.

And with Weaver it wasn't just failure to appear in court that caused his troubles. It was the fact that the Gov was trying to pressure him into being an informant. I mean they set him up, changed his court date without telling him, camped out armed on his property and created the exigency that caused the whole damn shoot out. This is a million times removed from some guy signing an agreement with a bail bondsman then skipping his court date.

 

[theGringo]

A warrant for your body is in essence a warrant to also search your residence for your body. It allows a search of YOUR residence only.

About time you got here. I hope that you'll convince me that this is not all as troubling as it looks.

A couple of stories here:

http://www.kval.com/news/national/89756377.html

Glen Pierce, owner of Gotta Go Bail Bonds reviewed the video of the incident. Pierce is not related to this case, but he finds it troubling over the way the deputies and bounty hunter entered the home. He said it is equally disturbing sheriff's deputies would go along with a bounty hunter into somebody's home.

"If the deputies would have done some research, maybe they could have found some parole or probation status at this house and justified their being there," said Pierce.

"But being there with the bounty hunter is the biggest problem," said Pierce.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/89812692.html

The men said they had an arrest warrant for Baker but when Hills asked to see warrants and identification, none were produced.

“It’s very obvious that I did not give them consent to set one foot in my house,” Hills said.

Various lawyers said an arrest warrant gives law enforcement agents the authority to make an arrest but a search warrant is needed to search a home.

These rules were established in the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against illegal search and seizures, and Hills believes her Constitutional rights were violated.

“All of the officers involved we’d like to see them reprimanded,” Hills said.

There are a number of exceptions to the rule and according to lawyers, police would need probable cause to enter a home without a search warrant.

It is unclear as to whether there was probable cause because the video starts as the law enforcement agents approach the home.

Another issue is the cooperation between sheriffs and the bail bondsmen.

Does an arrest warrant allow the search that was shown? No warrant was shown at all, and it appears the bail guy was already in the house by the time the front door was opened.

 

[Half Cocked]

Does an arrest warrant allow the search that was shown?

Yes... an arrest warrant would allow entry (forcible would be allowed also if justified) as well as a search of anywhere a person could be hiding.(i.e. you could not look through drawers, jewelry boxes etc.....) so long as it is the residence of the person wanted. There should be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is at the residence prior to a search of the residence. I base this on MA law but I believe CA is similar.

No warrant was shown at all

Although a warrant should have been shown it is not a fatal defect.... I gathered that she was aware that "Joe" was wanted and someone should have just taken a minute to explain that the "arrest warrant" allowed the entry and search.

it appears the bail guy was already in the house by the time the front door was opened.

I did not get that from the video but I could be wrong.......... I do not condone the "working together" of LEO and Bail Bondsman.

 

[theGringo]

There should be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is at the residence prior to a search of the residence. I base this on MA law but I believe CA is similar.

Persons interviewed in these articles question the presence of the probable cause necessary to enter the residence. Hopefully, some judicial followup will clear this up. The bail jumper was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant, and the video is not of the bail jumpers home, but the home of the girlfriend of the schlub that bailed the bail jumper out.

The video shows her opening the front door but when she turns around there are at least three men already in her home.

“They came in the window and the back door,” said Alan David, the man who lives at the home with Hills.

The men said they had an arrest warrant for Baker but when Hills asked to see warrants and identification, none were produced.

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/89812692.html

I think this department, and the bail bondsmen (three of whom evidently entered through the rear of the residence) have some splainin' to do.

 

[Half Cocked]

Persons interviewed in these articles question the presence of the probable cause necessary to enter the residence.

Question all they want..... there is no probable cause needed if he did in fact have a warrant outstanding for his arrest and it is where he is residing. The only probable cause needed would be that it was in fact where he resides. Certainly a question that neither of us can answer.

The bail jumper was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant

Completely irrelevent from a legal standpoint.

and the video is not of the bail jumpers home, but the home of the girlfriend of the schlub that bailed the bail jumper out.

How do we know that he was not residing there? Did I miss something? If there was no evidence that he ever resided there then I have issues with the search as well.

I think this department, and the bail bondsmen (three of whom evidently entered through the rear of the residence) have some splainin' to do.

For what? They had the legal authority to enter and search if he resided there and there was an outstanding warrant.

 

[RichM]

Half-Cocked, is it normal or occasional practice that a warrant not be presented to the occupant / homeowner when either a search or seizure are conducted?

I'll admit to being ignorant on this, but I thought that it was "standard practice", if such a thing exists, to bring a copy of the warrant to be delivered to the subject for his/her attorney? Yet this is the third recent occurrence where it hasn't happened (MFLR Seizure, the homeowner that had the EPA inspector walk over his land, and this case).

In at least two of these cases, the authorities said that they had a warrant, but failed to produce one for inspection (this case and the MFLR case), although the bail bondsman stated in this video that he had one but didn't need to show it.

In the EPA case, the inspector stated that she did not need one.

I'll look for the link to the EPA case and update this post in case anyone's not familiar with it.

Here's the video of the EPA search.



Here's the thread where we discssed it.

 

[theGringo]

Question all they want..... there is no probable cause needed if he did in fact have a warrant outstanding for his arrest and it is where he is residing. The only probable cause needed would be that it was in fact where he resides. Certainly a question that neither of us can answer.




Completely irrelevent from a legal standpoint.



How do we know that he was not residing there? Did I miss something? If there was no evidence that he ever resided there then I have issues with the search as well.



For what? They had the legal authority to enter and search if he resided there and there was an outstanding warrant.

Cops banging at the front door while bounty hunters enter through the rear ... No warrant shown. Bail guy claims to have a bench warrant, then states that he needs no warrant under "federal law". Color me skeptical. Hopefully this will make it to court, after the Sheriff's department concludes their investigation. We can compare notes then.

 

[Martlet]

Cops banging at the front door while bounty hunters enter through the rear ... No warrant shown. Bail guy claims to have a bench warrant, then states that he needs no warrant under "federal law". Color me skeptical. Hopefully this will make it to court, after the Sheriff's department concludes their investigation. We can compare notes then.

I can think of instances where a warrant wouldn't be present while making an arrest that seem legitimate to me. However, Dog the Bounty Hunter entered through the rear without being allowed entry. An independent agent said this wasn't legal. I assume he has more knowledge of CA law as it pertains to his industry than anyone here.