Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Civil Liberties Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=58)
-   -   warrant-less “protective sweep” gets expensive for the Lumpkin Co SO (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1366227)

frank_drebin 08-30-2011 10:17

warrant-less “protective sweep” gets expensive for the Lumpkin Co SO
 
Interesting story out of the local paper. The summary of the story is that Geoffrey Asher sped passed a deputy. That deputy followed him or pursued him to Mr Asher's residence where he then confronted the Plaintiff.

It got ugly after that...

Guns drawn, backup called, warrant-less search of property, etc...

A Federal Jury found that Mr Asher's 4th Amendment rights had been violated by the SO.

Six years of legal fees, punitive damages, compensatory damages going to Mr Asher now.

http://www.thedahloneganugget.com/ar...20lawsuits.txt

BamaTrooper 08-30-2011 10:26

I wonder how long the deputy was behind him and he didn't realize it?
Rather broad on the protective sweep though.

frank_drebin 08-30-2011 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaTrooper (Post 17848582)
I wonder how long the deputy was behind him and he didn't realize it?
Rather broad on the protective sweep though.

Yeah, if you've got kids, like I do, then you know Mr Asher was probably quite aware of what was happening as he pulled in to his driveway.

John Rambo 08-30-2011 10:33

Good for the homeowner! These kinds of rulings always make my day.

BamaTrooper 08-30-2011 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank_drebin (Post 17848596)
Yeah, if you've got kids, like I do, then you know Mr Asher was probably quite aware of what was happening as he pulled in to his driveway.

I'm sure.
Still, the house sweep? I don't know how the reached that far on what info the article relayed.

Carrys 08-30-2011 10:52

As a retired police officer, I'm never sorry to see rulings that go against any person or department that violates someone's rights. And it appears that is what happened here, at least as far as the court was concerned.

Proper training, the duty to hire people other than one's son in law or any other relatives, and ensuring that only properly trained and competent people are behind the badge is the responsibility of any department that cares about quality service to its community. The days of giving "Bubba" a gun and badge and telling them to get after it...... are long gone. It's their job to supply their communities with quality trained and properly educated officers. Rulings such as this are hard on a community, but at least it shows them that they alone are responsible for the people they place in charge of their own law enforcement. Can't be electing/hiring Joe Blow the rag man and expect to get top notch people to police them. First rate people hire first rate officers, even if they are better than their selves. Second rate people will always hire second rate subordinates.




As to the few folks who apparently hate anyone being able to "tell them what to do" and evidently dislike any type of "authority", it's what the society and community you live in have chosen and it's what those people have paid the good and decent officers to do.......so live with it or find yourself a rock to live under, eh?





Just my opinion.

Agent6-3/8 08-30-2011 10:55

Hmm...the article leaves me confused.

How long was Deputy Cole in pursuit of Asher? Were his lights and sirens activated? Did the deputy call in a pursuit? My biggest question; what did the "protective sweep" entail?

According to the article is sounds like Asher ignored the deputy's attempt to initiate a traffic stop. Once home, Asher further ignored the deputy's commands and entered his home. IMO, the deputy would have been right in pursing the man into this home, detaining him and securing the scene. Apparently, the protective sweep went beyond "plain view doctrine" and into the relm of a search.

I'll admit I'm stretching here trying to find a reasonable explaination why things turned out the way they did. There jsut isn't enough info...:dunno:

DanaT 08-30-2011 11:05

What exactly is a "protective sweep"?

-Dana

ray9898 08-30-2011 11:15

Really not enough details in that article to understand what happened. The Deputies would have been completely in their right to enter the home without a warrant due to hot pursit, they would also have been justified in a protective sweep to ensure no other persons were inside that could pose a threat.

I can only assume they went to far in and made it a search instead of simply clearing places a person could be. However, the article does not make that clear.

John Rambo 08-30-2011 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaT (Post 17848728)
What exactly is a "protective sweep"?

-Dana

A made up term to describe what happens when a cop decides hes above the law and storms and ransacks your house without legal justification.

Agent6-3/8 08-30-2011 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaT (Post 17848728)
What exactly is a "protective sweep"?

-Dana

Basically a protective sweep is to ensure there is no one is a danger to the officers and others on scene. As an example, if you find some one murdered in their living room, you'll want to do a protetive sweep of the house to ensure that the suspect isn't still here hiding.

In the we're discussing, I would think the sweep was done to ensure there wasn't someone else in the house loading preparing to attack he deputies on scene. During a protective sweep you can look in places a suspect could hide, but you can't go into drawers, medicine cabinets, etc. Contraband found in plain view (like a kilo of cocaine on the coffee table for example) could be seized, but you can't go digging. I suspect this is where the problem is.

BIGGUNS911 08-30-2011 11:22

From an story I found quotes from the "Free Republic"

The eight-person jury listened intently as a pair of Asher's neighbor's took to the stand and described what they saw take place on the front-lawn that day.

“I actually sat down in the rocking chair and watched the event,” said Kyle Carroll. “It was quite the neighborhood spectacle.”

Carroll said that he walked onto his back-porch to see Asher sitting on his truck while a deputy pointed a gun in the defendant's direction.

“He had his weapon trained on Mr. Asher,” said Carroll. “Mr. Asher was sitting on his tailgate with his arms crossed.”

Much of this face-off was shown for the jury through the footage from Cole's patrol car dash-cam.

In this video, the vehicle of fellow neighbor and witness Jennifer Green can be spotted as Cole's patrol car raced by her in pursuit of Asher.

“[He] was driving erratically,” she said while on the stand. “Really, really fast. And it caused me actually have to swerve to get out of its way.”

Green added that it did not appear to her that Asher was actually being pursued by the patrol car, since Cole had not turned on a siren.

“I couldn't tell that it was following Mr. Asher's truck,” she said. “It was just far enough apart .. I didn't make the connection.”

Asher himself took to the stand and told the court that he, too, was unaware that Cole was in pursuit of his vehicle that day. He said he was shocked and angered to find a deputy on his front lawn with his gun drawn.

“At that moment I was a bit confused. I did not know what was going to happen. I asked ‘Why are you here?'” he said. “And he screamed he was going to shoot me.'”

As evidenced from the dash-cam, Asher yelled back.

“I got a little annoyed when he wouldn't hostler his gun,” he said, while on the stand.

Asher admitted that he refused to follow the deputy's orders for him to lay down on the ground. Instead he said he was waiting for a commanding officer to take control of the scene.

“My sincere belief and hope was that adult supervision was going to show up,” he said.

frank_drebin 08-30-2011 11:38

BIGGUNS911.... Please delete the above quote to keep this thread from getting locked.

Smashy 08-30-2011 11:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaT (Post 17848728)
What exactly is a "protective sweep"?

-Dana




http://www2.2space.net/images/upl_ne...1312959603.jpg

BamaTrooper 08-30-2011 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Rambo (Post 17848771)
A made up term to describe what happens when a cop decides hes above the law and storms and ransacks your house without legal justification.

The above comes from the Conspiracy Theorist's Dictionary available from TinFoil Press 1984

Carrys 08-30-2011 11:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Rambo (Post 17848771)
A made up term to describe what happens when a cop decides hes above the law and storms and ransacks your house without legal justification.



"Storms" and "ransacks", eh?

Were those the words the court or article used, or are those simply to show us all your dislike of what happened? You seem to have knowledge that no on else has concerning the Deputy's actions, action that were indeed wrong. Seems that isn't enough for you though.

It's like I were listening to a PO'ed liberal trying to justify their position when they couldn't find anything else that pleased them enough truth wise.



Let me guess, ya got a bumper sticker that says "From my cold dead hands!" and you wear cammo and a boonie hat everywhere ya go?

Carrys 08-30-2011 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIGGUNS911 (Post 17848792)
“My sincere belief and hope was that adult supervision was going to show up,” he said.

Sounds to me as if a supervisor had shown up, he would have been the only "adult" there.




Cause as we all know, when the person being charged with a crime or chased is speaking........he's the only one speaking the truth, no?:whistling:

Bren 09-02-2011 05:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank_drebin (Post 17848560)
Interesting story out of the local paper. The summary of the story is that Geoffrey Asher sped passed a deputy. That deputy followed him or pursued him to Mr Asher's residence where he then confronted the Plaintiff.

It got ugly after that...

Guns drawn, backup called, warrant-less search of property, etc...

A Federal Jury found that Mr Asher's 4th Amendment rights had been violated by the SO.

Six years of legal fees, punitive damages, compensatory damages going to Mr Asher now.

http://www.thedahloneganugget.com/ar...20lawsuits.txt


Not much of an article - if they were arresting the guy, a protective sweep was legal, but it may have gone farther than the law allows. Here, that case would have been an arrest and a protective sweep of the immeidate area around him would be perfectly legal under federal/constitutional law.

Coincidentally, I have made exactly the same arrest...of my police chief's 2 nephews...who refused to stop and tried to go in their house after I tried t stop one of them for speeding. I also got sued in federal court, but they both lost blood and had hospital visits and I won the lawsuit. I got sued for beating them, not for the search.

Brucev 09-02-2011 07:00

Happily the jury got it right. The Constitution trumps entitlements... even those of LEO’s who want to conduct warrantless searches under the color of training. The former sheriff and deputy are held accountable. A money judgment comprised of compensatory and punitive damages is awarded to the plaintiff. The county is liable for plaintiff’s attorney fees, etc. Justice is served.

Further worthy of note... that Asher had five guns in his vehicle along with other guns in the house as well as ammunition, medical suppies, etc. Is irrelevant. He probably also had a sack of potatoes in the kitchen and some toilet tissue in the bathroom. The efforts of deputies to charge him with drug and weapon offense were as substantial as the tissue that would have been found in that bathroom.

The noted defiance of Asher as cause to search was not sustained. Odd. Citizens are not required to abandon their Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights in the face of a out-of-control officer threatening to shoot them. Good for jury. They understand the Constitution.

Miller was not judged credible by the jury. Apparently they did not have confidence in his veracity or that of Stover. Miller’s militia or supremist fishing expedition apparently failed on its face to convince anyone likely due to his or anyone else’s failure to provide any substantiation by any follow-up investigation. Amazingly Miller was unsure of what the follow-up investigation entailed. Odd.

In the end, it all came down to credibility. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury found that Asher concluded that Asher was telling the truth and that Miller and the other officers were lying. The jury followed the Constitution. Excellent.

This is the second time that the search by Miller and company has been found unconstitutional. Happily Judge Miller (LCSC) knows how to read and apply the Constitution. Excellent.

Now... it's time for individual personal lawsuist to be brought against Miller and others associated with the above abuse of Ashers' Constitutional rights. The matter cannot be considered settled in full until they have been individually personally forced to accept responsibility for their violation of the law. Otherwise, they are free to once again go out and offend.

Booker 09-02-2011 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bren (Post 17860754)
Not much of an article - if they were arresting the guy, a protective sweep was legal, but it may have gone farther than the law allows. Here, that case would have been an arrest and a protective sweep of the immeidate area around him would be perfectly legal under federal/constitutional law.

Coincidentally, I have made exactly the same arrest...of my police chief's 2 nephews...who refused to stop and tried to go in their house after I tried t stop one of them for speeding. I also got sued in federal court, but they both lost blood and had hospital visits and I won the lawsuit. I got sued for beating them, not for the search.

Did I read this correctly? Are you stating that you got sued for beating two people bad enough to put them in hospital for speeding?:dunno:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:10.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.