43 votes

Two sheriffs showed up at my back door this afternoon

Two officers from the sheriff's department showed up at my backdoor this afternoon. Here's why:

I had invited the new neighbors whose daughter is in my kid's kindergarten class to my house today. The dad had gone home to get some clothes for his daughter because she got them wet wading in the pool. As he walked back to my house with a pink backpack, he went through my side gate and into my backyard. A neighbor saw him enter my property and called the police because it looked suspicious.

The back sliding glass door was open with a screen door between me and two officers. They saw that all was well with parents and kids playing in the house and left, taking the long way around my property through the other side gate.

I went through the front door and asked why they had gone into my backyard instead of knocking at my front door. They said with the neighbors call, they had a right and probable cause to enter my property. If it had been a burglar/home invader, they couldn't have just knocked at the front door. There have been a few car thefts in the neighborhood lately, and I think the neighbors are watching closely.

So it's all well and justified, I suppose. I'm just glad my new neighbor wasn't outside by himself. They might have drawn their guns on him. I have seen lots of posts about the police state and the "see something, say something" paranoia. So I was a bit freaked out when the police were at my backdoor.

Nothing to see here folks... move along.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ConstitutionHugger's picture

This is weird, I posted this 6 months ago

and now the date says two days ago. I did not even use my computer on Saturday. For those who were curious, this happened in California, in a San Diego suburb. I have no idea why this reposted as a new post.

Probable Cause Is Gunfire - Not Walking To The Back Yard

Those of you who think this is no big deal should think again. There was no probable cause to think that ANY crime was being committed, much less a felony. It was a guy walking into a backyard. I would have asked for a supervisor and made an issue of it in order to prevent it from happening again.

-use 'em or lose 'em.

Here is how police would work in a voluntary society

http://www.dailypaul.com/296217/success-council-video-will-a...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

wait

“One person can't waive another persons 4th amendment rights while they are physically present." Isn't that what the concerned neighbor did? He waived his neighbors 4th amendment rights. What's to stop police from entering your home and when confronted they can just say we got word of a felony (insert crime here) being committed. There! No warrant needed ever.

Jury Nullification is a power of the last resort against tyranny.

Ignorance

Why is the Liberty movement (or the fear everything movement as it seems) so clueless about case law?

US v. Mcconney
Brinegar v. US

You should bury your head in the sand. It will help you feel like these decisions don't effect you, even though they do.

"ignorance"

Here you are claiming ignorance of the liberty movement all in the same breath you show your ignorance that you assume everyone in that group are minarchists. Just because case law exists does not mean we agree with it, just because the government makes decisions does not mean we are required to agree with it either. Have you considered that some of us are not in support of any government? If your knowledge is so vast and the rest of us are so ignorant, then why are you so painfully unaware of the diffrent factions around you?

I don't know... it's getting awfully difficult to tell apart

real and fake 'police' uniforms & badges & cruisers (anyone got or has an access to a Crown Vic. or Dodge Charger or lowered GM Yukon/Suburban with printable vinyl graphics & LED lights? you got yourself a police cruiser) these days... and seeing as how not one cop I've seen these days act like a peace officer, or nothing like cops I grew up around, I'd say it's safe to assume that no one in govt uniform is who they say they are.

lol

frankly, nowadays, my de facto default position is, they're imposters until proven otherwise... hey, when it comes to all things govt, history has factually proven that it is wholly factually justified to assume them to be 100% GUILTY until 100% proven innocent.

then again, aren't ALL state-ACTORS...actually real actors & imposters??

lol.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I feel like I read the exact

I feel like I read the exact same story on DP like a month ago.

Really? I thought so, too. I

Really? I thought so, too. I thought maybe it was just deja vu...

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

ya I was actually worried I

ya I was actually worried I might have a neurological condition goin on. Not saying its identical but eerily similar. De ja vu is a sensation that goes away after a few seconds, like a double firing neuron. This is a continuous, distinct and clear memory, like any other. Oh well.

Sounds like good cops. Honor them.

They sound like the kind of cops I would like to feature in my Good Cops Calendar.
http://www.dailypaul.com/291703/kickstarter-project-idea-the...

why are pandas exempt from RICO statutes?

Thank You!

Thank you so much for sharing your story, this was a really great post to read. If it were a city police department or state police, this wouldn't surprise me at all, but it was the Sheriffs department and that is unusual.

If you don't mind me asking, what state did this happen in and was it in an urban or rural area? The reason I ask this question is because my thinking on this subject is rooted in the premise that two Americas are developing in parallel..

An urban police state with most of the population alongside low population density rural areas which maintain a higher degree of personal freedom.

I predict the suburbs are ultimately doomed and the rural areas will need to obtain great independence, especially in the area of energy production, to remain free~ish.

Best fellowship times to build relationships!

If I we're you I would take the time to befriend my neighbors!

This is one of my sharing moving in a new community http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDUpjIJFFFk&list=FL7GeOMJdgYm...

Positive support for Ron Paul ideas! Support from the Restoration and Liberty Movement on http://cristianpaduraru.com

That's legal here in Texas

I don't know what state you are in but in Texas a peace officer is authorized to enter your property or even your house without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a felony is occurring (which burglary is). Once the police realize that there is no such crime taking place they lose their authority to be there and need to leave or get permission to stay. That sounds like exactly what happened.

I would be too harsh on your neighbor, he (or she) did what he thought was right.

The moral of the story: If you don't like it elect people who will try to pass a law that says police can never enter private property without a warrant. It will never happen and would be a disaster if it did but at least you tried.

It would be a disaster if

It would be a disaster if police needed a warrant to go onto your property?! You've got to be kidding me. That kind o logic isn't just unfounded and idiotic, it's dangerous and irresponsible to the max.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

A reasonable solution

I completely support property rights, though at the same time I believe in social contracts. Fact of the matter is, if there is imminent danger (not manufactured, I mean someone is breaking into your house and has a weapon or whatever) and you're incapacitated or otherwise unable to give consent, I agree that police should be able to enter ONLY to catch the perpetrator.

On that same note, that is a power that could be abused. For that reason, I believe that the property owner should be granted immunity from any contraband, etc that is in his house (as there is no warrant). On top of that, just for some extra accountability, perhaps these officers should also be required to wear a camera on their actual person at all times while on duty.

Public servants have no reasonable expectation of privacy while on duty.

Basically, why don't we try implementing a system where we can monitor our public servants? It seems like it would really help accountability and allow them to do their jobs easier than having them spying on us, etc.

No.

They just need a warrant or clear, provable, REAL probable cause. There is no need to complicate it more than that. If there is any actual evidence that something is going on, it is not only possible but far too easy to obtain an immediate warrant.

I NEVER signed any bullshit "social contract" so stick it up your ass. I would never sign a contract that said the other party or anyone chosen by he other party could at any time without evidence or reason determine that I am in danger and ransack my house to save me from a nonexistent danger. And no one has the authority to put me under such an agreement except myself.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Agreed

But for this to work a family must take responsibility for their own defense. This could even include making an arrangement with neighbors. If the neighbors believed it was their duty according to a prearranged agreement to intervene personally and leave the police out of it, the situation would have obviously been really different.

Most people have way too much faith that police can protect them and so this dependency mentality has aided and abetted the destruction of legal obstacles to trespassing.

Nobody, regardless of what type of hat they choose to wear or not wear is welcome on my property unless I have given them permission. Anyone on my property without permission will be challenged without the need for police. The police can come and file their report after the fact. That is what they are good for.

Exactly. Personal

Exactly. Personal responsibility. It wouldn't seem like such a gamble if people would realize that police aren't there to prevent crime, just to punish people after the fact. Which is needed -- no one (sane) is saying we should do away with police entirely. But people need to realize that the amount of times police have actually stopped a crime in progress is a fraction of a fraction.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

It would

That would be free licence to batter the sh*t out of your spouse, as long as you are at your house. When the police come to your door, simply ask them for their warrant.

If a person ever wants to elude the police, break into someones home. The police can't follow them because they lack a warrant.

Sexual assault? The police better wait outside because they don't have a warrant to enter.

I could go on, but anyone with a open mind gets the picture. It is actually better for law to define circumstances that authorize when an officer can and can't do something than to leave it completely open to officer discretion and challenge individual cases in the courts.

So privacy is dangerous, is

So privacy is dangerous, is your argument. My response? Too fucking bad. Deal with it. You're insane and illogical and can't realize how much more dangerous police are than criminals, but that is your problem. If you come on my property ill just shoot you so don't. End of story. If you want to invite the police in your home go ahead but if they come in mine without just cause (and i mean a real CAUSE, not suspicion of a cause) they will not get a warning shot.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Huh?

You are making a classic neoliberal argument. Something might go wrong somewhere so let's give the state all the power. These arguments always conveniently forget that law enforcement is comprised of fallible humans too.

If a spouse calls because they are being abused, I assume the property is theirs as well and so they can call the police and give permission as a home owner to come on the property. Or, they could flee to a friend or relative. Or, they could grab a gun and stick it in their spouse's face the next time they attempt to be abusive. All kinds of things could happen. I don't surrender my freedoms because somebody somewhere is incapable of making good life choices.

Meanwhile, these type of stories continue on a daily basis unabated:

Texas deputy accused of raping mother in front of her children resigns

I don't need any 'help' from the government. If the phrase "Hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help" doesn't scare the crap out of you, you are NOT a libertarian!

Still not getting it...

No one here is arguing to give the "state all the power" so you're just attacking the straw man. Having an intelligent discussion is impossible when people start talking in extremes. Maybe you are well aware of that. I am for stating in law what circumstances should allow police to act without a warrant and using my state of Texas as an example. If you want to debate something then debate that.

You aren't understanding the 4th amendment either. One person can't waive another persons 4th amendment rights while they are physically present. Georgia v. Randolph. If police needed consent to enter a home to stop an assault, one spouse saying yes would not overrule another spouse saying no. Honestly, what made you assume that?

I would hold off on writing that book about how to stop the cycle of family violence too. Have you ever seen a door with one lock installed backwards, so you can both lock people both in and out? What about iron bars over all the windows and doors, so no one without the key can get out even if there were a fire? How about a phone smashed to pieces? If the solution were simple if would of been solved a long time ago.

No, that wasn't a straw man.

No, that wasn't a straw man. He was arguing directly against what you say, that cops should have absolute power to enter your premed is at all times. Very specifically in fact. Agree or disagree, but that was the furthest thing possible from a straw man.

Your argument is a modified anti-terrorism argument. Let's let the world's number one all time killer into our houses to protect us from something extremely unfortunate that occurs once in a great while (except the trick is that it still won't).

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

These scenarios are unlikey and contrived.

For 50 years of my life why was this never an issue or danger raised.

Free includes debt-free!

No no no. You aren't helping.

No no no. You aren't helping. That is a massive fallacy, one of the worst non-sequeters I've ever seen. You haven't seen it, so it can't happen? Have you seen a monetary collapse? Have you seen a holocaust? Have you seen someone die? You are wrong, these events are unfortunately relatively common.

The kicker is that police brutality is even more common and police actually stopping it or helping even if on the scene is next to null.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Hogwash. To demagogue an issue isn't helpful, either

Criminals know how the hide from crime. Some even hide behind a badge.

People are rotten, they can choose not to be.

Free includes debt-free!

There is a big difference

There is a big difference between an individual choosing not to be rotten and some ridiculous and genuinely insane idea that everyone makes that choice...

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Either you choose not to be rotten or your asleep.

Everyone is called, few choose. So it was written. Not everyone chooses to reject rottenness.

I reject the reasoning of your straw man. They are insane.

Free includes debt-free!

My straw man? Lol. You're

My straw man? Lol. You're either trolling or stoned.

You said that rape is a contrived scenario. When I replied stating the undeniable fact that is fucking wrong and idiotic, you changed the subject.

Your straw man, you mean? Just admit you said something really, really stupid and move on.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us