No Warrant? No Exigent circumstances? No Problem

[E.Marquez]

I post this one,,, because I'm interested to see if the groups here sees this as it is being portrayed by this reporter, or believe there is more to to story that might explain what is provided.

I've found very little else about this case on the net to confirm or deny what is in the video tape,, which is made up largely by the Sheriffs own recordings.

My intent is to discuss the event and in general the actions of the persons involved.. NOT to attack the PERSON, LEO or citizen.
http://www.kccn.tv/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
LANGUAGE WARNING ON AUDIO LINK added by mod
Sheriff's deputies' disdain for Constitution
captured by their own recorded comments

By DANIEL BLACKBURN

When San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Murphy responded to a “shots fired” call in April 2008, he decided en route that he was going to make an arrest.

He did far more than that. Murphy and other deputies made an unwarranted entry into a home, and then into a locked gun safe. Murphy's uncensored, darkly disturbing observations and behavior following his Code-3 arrival at the rural home of longtime SLO County resident Matt Hart were picked up by Murphy's and other deputies’ own recorders. Those recordings provide a rare, frighteningly revealing, behind-the-scenes perspective of how one local law enforcement agency views the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other laws its personnel are sworn to uphold.

Sheriff’s spinner Rob Bryn declined to confirm the identities of any of the deputies appearing or heard in the recordings, or to discuss any aspect of the Hart home invasion. So we've done that for you. (Bryn, ever the public servant, eventually stopped responding to e-mails from a KCCN.tv reporter.)

Deputies’ deportment in the field as exhibited by their own words, as well as their plainly audible efforts to fabricate justifications for their actions, are lamentable. Local county prosecutors’ subsequent abuse of power, wielded in a cavalier, clumsy, and transparent effort to avoid a lawsuit, also is troubling.



But in the larger scheme of things, it is the systematic dismantling of the Fourth Amendment by over-zealous cops and an enabling judiciary that should be a cause of concern for every American citizen. Incredibly, Hart's case may be less of an anomaly than it appears.

The question is: Should law enforcement officers like Deputy Darren Murphy be allowed to make day-to-day, life-changing decisions regarding the fate of law-abiding citizens?

Watch. Listen. And then you be the judge.

[TXlaw1]

As a retired LEO I found the actions of these deputies in this case outrageous - especially the primary deputy. At a minimum he should be severely disciplined. But the cover up has been up the chain of command. And the DA seems to have been involved with threatening several felonies to get a plea to close the case. That's outrageous too.

I did not see anything in the report done by the victim of this overreaching that justified these actions. Now give his guns back.

[suthdj]

My guess is the LEO's will get off maybe written warning, the home owner will get $$$$ and his record will be cleared the remaining weapons may or may not be returned. There will be not charges for violating the 4th after all it is not a "Real" law only a civil right.

[Excaliber]

As a retired LEO I found the actions of these deputies in this case outrageous - especially the primary deputy. At a minimum he should be severely disciplined. But the cover up has been up the chain of command. And the DA seems to have been involved with threatening several felonies to get a plea to close the case. That's outrageous too.

I did not see anything in the report done by the victim of this overreaching that justified these actions. Now give his guns back.

This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

A successful federal lawsuit with large punitive damages against both the agency and the individuals involved is probably the most promising way to dissuade similar actions in the future, but it will take years if ever to see justice done.

[The Annoyed Man]

The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

Understand that SLO is in California. People don't make it to high office in California unless they have previously indicated a disregard for the Constitution.

[WildBill]

This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?

[baldeagle]

Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

[WildBill]

Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

[TXlaw1]

Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

Probably not a Federal criminal case so no FBI jurisdiction - unless the Justice Department would deem it a violation of civil rights (but the dude was not a minority) or he files a case in Federal Court for such a violation. Even then it would be a civil case so I don't think the FBI would get involved.

[Excaliber]

This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?

In my experience things like this rarely happen because one or more officers set out to deliberately trample the constitution or people's rights. I don't think the call handling we saw here, as atrocious as it was, started out as a conscious decision to do wrong. I'd be willing to bet none of the involved officers would have gone nearly as far if he had been alone on the call.

Here's how things can go south in police work, and this or some variation of it may well be the back story in this case:

The stage is set by departmental leadership that "saves money on training". This is done by providing only mandated minimums, or even less. This deprives officers of the knowledge and skills they need to be consistently successful in the field.

Add aloof management whose stance is that no news is good news.Their subordinates quickly take the hint and don't tell them anything about things that don't go well. As a result, close calls, warning signs and smaller incidents never make it to the command level and they sit around congratulating themselves on how well things are going. The situation is often compounded by poor first and second line supervision which leaves most critical decision making in the hands of those least prepared to do that well.

Then, as in virtually every disaster, a bad day brings multiple weak links together in the same place at the same time. In this case, the deputies lack of training left them with only a very vague understanding of the basics of search and seizure law. The lack of a supervisor on scene left them to their own devices. This is the formula for bad initial decisions cascading into even worse ones as time goes on. No one puts a stop to it because even though each one knows that he doesn't know what he's doing, he figures that the others know more than he does and he doesn't want to look like a dummy in front of them.

It appeared to me that at several points each of them got the queasy feeling that they'd stepped over the line and they were starting to feel the thin ice they were standing on starting to crack. They then began polling each other for ways to justify what they had done. As in many group situations, no one wanted to be the one to say "Stop. This isn't right." When they all finally recognized they had gone way too far, were in deep kimchee, and there was no way a true account would justify their actions, they started discussing the "flowery language" approach that they hoped might keep consequences from what they had done from following their actions.

Concoctions and embellishments never hold up very long when smart people start asking pertinent questions. At that point, the agency leadership starts realizing that what's happened wasn't something they'll want to highlight with a full page on in the annual report. Their choice at that time is to do a transparent investigation and let the chips fall where they may, , take the flogging for poor leadership, and try to restore public trust with appropriate action, or to do as so many of our esteemed politicians do: stonewall and hope it goes away.

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. When option 2 comes to pass, things get really ugly.

I suspect that's what will end up happening here.

[WildBill]

Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

Probably not a Federal criminal case so no FBI jurisdiction - unless the Justice Department would deem it a violation of civil rights (but the dude was not a minority) or he files a case in Federal Court for such a violation. Even then it would be a civil case so I don't think the FBI would get involved.

I didn't realize that civil rights only applied to minorities.

[WildBill]

This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?

In my experience things like this rarely happen because one or more officers set out to deliberately trample the constitution or people's rights. I don't think the call handling we saw here, as atrocious as it was, started out as a conscious decision to do wrong. I'd be willing to bet none of the involved officers would have gone nearly as far if he had been alone on the call.

I am not suggesting that when the officers recieved the call, they deliberately set out to trample the defendant's rights. But when they all arrived on the scene there was a cascading effect where they turned into a vengeful mob, where each officer contributed and condoned the other's illegal actions.

I believe that this was a result of their "training" to a certain extent. When these officers were taught the law, they were also led to believe that it was acceptable to stretch the truth or confuse the truth with "colorful language" as long as it could be justified by arresting and prosecuting the "bad guy."

Whether or not they would have done it "alone" is besides the point. Perjured testimony under the color of authority is powerful evidence in court. Their corraborating false testimony is even more odious.

Concoctions and embellishments never hold up very long when smart people start asking pertinent questions.

That a poor consolation for the person who is arresting and sitting in jail. An innocent person should never be put in the position where these questions have to be asked.

[Excaliber]

This was clearly a despicable abuse of power by very poorly trained and led LEO's. It does not speak well for the agency that an extended action of this type involving multiple officers did not merit a visit by a field supervisor to the scene.

I would have to second the comment at the end - what happens at the level of execution reflects the values and actions of the agency's senior leadership. The agency's post incident response shows that the senior administration has no regard for the constitution, feels no obligation to ensure that officers adhere to their oaths of office, and does not see its role as one of either protection or service to the public.

It appears that the LEOs and their supervisors were trained well enough to have the knowledge to start a conspiracy to justify their illegal search and seizure.

This whole scenario makes me ill. As you stated, the senior adminstration has no regard for the constitution and their oaths of office. This is a clear violation of the constitution and civil rights. Where is the FBI when you need them?

In my experience things like this rarely happen because one or more officers set out to deliberately trample the constitution or people's rights. I don't think the call handling we saw here, as atrocious as it was, started out as a conscious decision to do wrong. I'd be willing to bet none of the involved officers would have gone nearly as far if he had been alone on the call.

I am not suggesting that when the officers recieved the call, they deliberately set out to trample the defendant's rights. But when they all arrived on the scene there was a cascading effect where they turned into a vengeful mob, where each officer contributed and condoned the other's illegal actions.

I believe that this was a result of their "training" to a certain extent. When these officers were taught the law, they were also led to believe that it was acceptable to stretch the truth or confuse the truth with "colorful language" as long as it could be justified by arresting and prosecuting the "bad guy."

Whether or not they would have done it "alone" is besides the point. Perjured testimony under the color of authority is powerful evidence in court. Their corraborating false testimony is even more odious.

Concoctions and embellishments never hold up very long when smart people start asking pertinent questions.

That a poor consolation for the person who is arresting and sitting in jail. An innocent person should never be put in the position where these questions have to be asked.

Wild Bill, I'm not making excuses for these folks - I'm just trying to make how several smaller and seemingly unrelated circumstances can cascade into an incident like this a bit less bizarre. It happens in many small steps, not one horrific decision.

A similar process happens in private industry - AIG and Enron would be case studies on the corporate scale.

[WildBill]

Wild Bill, I'm not making excuses for these folks - I'm just trying to make how several smaller and seemingly unrelated circumstances can cascade into an incident like this a bit less bizarre. It happens in many small steps, not one horrific decision.

A similar process happens in private industry - AIG and Enron would be case studies on the corporate scale.

I understand completely. One can not excuse the inexcusable.

[TXlaw1]

Where is the FBI when you need them?

Investigating Arizona.

Sorry, I forgot.

Probably not a Federal criminal case so no FBI jurisdiction - unless the Justice Department would deem it a violation of civil rights (but the dude was not a minority) or he files a case in Federal Court for such a violation. Even then it would be a civil case so I don't think the FBI would get involved.

I didn't realize that civil rights only applied to minorities.

Shouldn't but sure seems to be the case with the current AG and DOJ.