TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

WildBill wrote: Is this the law used in the Rodney King civil trial? I seem to remember that the prosecutor had to show that more than one officer was involved.

I'm not all that familiar with the ins and outs of that case, WildBill. In the federal civil rights case only two of the four LEO defendants were convicted, and this may well have been the statute involved, accounting for the split verdict. But I really do not know for sure.

As a collateral matter, you would be correct if you were to assume that it is generally easier to convict of a conspiracy charge than of the completed offense.

If when you use the words "civil trial" you mean the civil case King brought against LA County, as contrasted with the prior criminal case, the answer to your question would be, I would think, in the negative. That is, the criminal trial was not a "civil case," within the general meaning of the term.
Jim

b322da wrote:

WildBill wrote: This is interesting. So it would be legal for one person to injure, oppress, etc. ?

Incorrect, WildBill, but a good question, leading to a little more analysis of the law.

As an example of a federal statute apparently applicable to the situation described by TAM I have offered a "conspiracy" statute. In general, one does not conspire with himself. TAM had more than one bad cop involved in this shocking situation. One need not succeed in the object of a criminal conspiracy in order to be guilty of the conspiracy itself.

Had the homeowner sent the LEOs on their way, then to have had them follow through with their unlawful threats at a later date, we would have been faced with a whole new criminal law ballgame.

Jim

b322da wrote:Looks like you finally got responsive replies, but I had to go to the end of the thread to find them. Perhaps I might be a bit more responsive by citing a specific federal statute prohibiting conduct like this. I am no longer an LEO, but I was for many years, and I have been exposed to the criminal law, including the particular statute, in other employment for most of my life.

Gross police misconduct like this in my opinion amounts at least to violation of 18 U. S. Code , Sec. 241:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Jim

baldeagle wrote:

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:"Hot pursuit" means you (the LEO) SAW the bad guy(s) enter the abode. That was not the case in my OP. Police were looking for two guys whom they believed to be parole violators, and they were knocking on doors looking for them. They did not see the suspects enter the man's home. . . .or any other home, for that matter, or they would have obviously gone to that home directly.

You might think so, but that is not the case law.

Please cite the case law to which you refer. In my reading I find that the police cannot do warrantless searches anywhere that an individual has "a reasonable expectation of privacy". The home would certainly qualify. Therefore, the only exception would be hot pursuit, but hot pursuit requires just that. Unless the police have an articulable reason for thinking the felons are in your house, it's not hot pursuit. In TAM's description, hot pursuit is questionable at best.

The Annoyed Man wrote:"Hot pursuit" means you (the LEO) SAW the bad guy(s) enter the abode. That was not the case in my OP. Police were looking for two guys whom they believed to be parole violators, and they were knocking on doors looking for them. They did not see the suspects enter the man's home. . . .or any other home, for that matter, or they would have obviously gone to that home directly.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I thought if they were in active pursuit of criminals they could enter the abode. Am I incorrect in that if they are actively chasing a suspect they can enter?

"Hot pursuit" is the common term.

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/155500c.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes hot pursuit. Thanks!
Unforunately I have images of Dukes of Hazzard banging in my head now...

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I thought if they were in active pursuit of criminals they could enter the abode. Am I incorrect in that if they are actively chasing a suspect they can enter?