Police - An evening in America - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Herk · 12-27-2007, 07:03 PM

I pre-apologize. This will be long.

Today two deputy sheriffs came to my door. My sis lives with me in the basement. She pays half the rent. My wife and I pay the other half and the utilities. About eight months ago, she was stopped and found to possess a narcotic. Now this narcotic was prescribed to the dead mother of her landlord at the duplex she resided in prior to moving in with me. The were in the cabinet there. I believe it was morphine, or something that breaks down into morphine. Anyway, as part of the moving process she decided to take this bottle to her coworker which doubled as her landlord. (I know this might sound like bullshit, but that is neither here nor there. For the sake of argument, lets assume she did genuinely have some non-prescribed morphine for recreation.)

So, she got arrested. We bailed her out. She was informed that within six months they'd decide whether or not to charge her with a felony drug possession.(I guess they had to think about it) After talking to some lawyers about it, she concluded that they were just being assholes and that six months would probable come and go.

Well, six months came and went. Two months after six months came and went, earlier tonight, two deputies showed up at my door. My sister was still at work.

They asked for her. I told them she was not here. They asked to come in. I told them no. They asked if I was harboring a fugitive, and I replied no. He asked me where my sister was. I told him I did not know, and that we don't keep tabs on one another, because we don't. She could be out on a date for all I know. They told me they'd like to check the house for her. Again, I said no thanks. They asked for her cell phone number. I told them that I meant no disrespect, but I don't give out other people's phone numbers.

Then he asked for my ID. I asked him why. He said, so that he could see that I was who I said I was. This was a totally acceptable reason. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be a dick, I just needed a good reason. So, I pulled out my DD Form 2, which I have only because I remain on inactive ready reserve. He said, "So you mean to tell me that you are in the service, and you are still going to harbor a fugitive?"

I said, "No, I'm not in the military. I was in the military, yes. However, I'm harboring no fugitive."

Sidebar - This part pissed me off the most. I didn't join the military for free college. I didn't sign up to wield a weapon, work on nukes, or travel the world. I signed up because, in spite of hating mostly everything about the military, I wanted to protect my children's freedom as my elders had done for me. That is the only reason, I put myself through that bureaucratic, corporate bullshit for six years.

Anyway, the bitch next to Barney Fife decide to jump in. She said something to the effect of I needed to start disclosing information or else. I said, "Ma'am, I mean no respect to either of you, but I'm quite certain I've broken no laws. If I have, please let me know. I'm just trying to protect my sister as much as possible, without breaking the law, until I know what is going on."

She replied, "Well what's going on is your sister has a dangerous felony warrant out for her arrest."

"For what?"

"I can't tell you that sir."

"Ok."

Then she said, "You know what is going to happen when we see a black Monte Carlo in this culdesac tonight?"

...

"We're going to get a search warrant, bust down your door, children will be scared, put you all on the floor at gun point, search your property, then take all of you to jail, and your child(a princess, she's 6) to DFS."

Ending the story. I asked for his phone number and told him I'd call immediately upon seeing her, and wanted to cooperate as much as reasonable.

Finally they left.

I'm so sick of people being ok with this. What the hell is going on? I'm just a guy standing in dress pants and a wife beater A-line, having just taken off my shirt and tie from work and saying hello to my daughter, I have no idea what the hell is going on eight months later, and this bitch is telling me she is going to put my wife and I at gun point and take my little princess to DFS.

First of all, USE OF FORCE model. I'd assume she'd have heard of it being a cop and all.

Secondly, why does everybody seem to think of the government as paternal, like we're supposed to do what the government says just because. NO NO NO! They are in place to do what we say is the best for all of us. You and I pay their paychecks, and last I checked we are not criminals until be convicted as such. Up until then we are just an equal American with the right to all the same respects as a police officer.

I cannot divulge any more of my meme here because it is already too lengthy, but feel free to chatter about it. I have a lot more to say on the matter. Thanks for letting me rant to you TFP. I feel much better now.

BTW - I called my sister immediately following them leaving. I told her that I didn't want to give her any information other than what they gave me, but I told her what had happened and gave her the telephone number to the Deputy. She drove in anxious tears to our mom's place not knowing what the hell she was about to get arrested for, and upon arriving set up a meeting with a bail bondsman and turned herself in without delay. She is in jail currently but will be bailed out soon. Of course, who knows what will happen in court. I know that I'm not very pleased to see my tax dollars paying to fuck with people who are obviously no threat to nobody and ultimately paying to cloth, house, feed, and buff up all these people that could be out living there life.

We're all just trying to get from one end of life to the other as happily as possible, but it would appear that the only way for some to accomplish this is to take that right away from another, deserving or not.

djtestudo · 12-27-2007, 07:24 PM

The ONLY thing I will say in their defense is that we need to remember how many people truly do act like complete pricks to the police, either by actually committing crimes like harboring, or just obstructing for the hell of it.

One of the kids in the family who used to own the house I live in was always in trouble, and one day I walked out the front door as two sheriff's deputies walked up. They started asking me about this guy (who hasn't lived in the house for at least five years, if not longer), and seemed very hesitant to accept my insistence that he no longer lived here.

But that is really no excuse at the end of the day.

Herk · 12-27-2007, 07:44 PM

Doesn't matter in my opinion, but just so you know I was incredibly polite to them. I pride myself on manners and respect, and it takes a lot to make me break that mold. I was overly respectful in this case, I fear.

filtherton · 12-27-2007, 07:46 PM

Yep. There are plenty of cops who suck as people and as cops. We put up with it because they have guns, the backing of often amoral unions, many are complete cowards when it comes to actually following the law themselves, and they have the full weight of the legal system behind them, even when they do shit that would put the average person behind bars for a long time.

host · 12-27-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

I pre-apologize. This will be long....

Long ? Hmmm...."long" is in the eyes of the beholder..... Herk, you're joking, or are you suddenly shocked into suspending your faith in "the authorities"?

Did you follow the outing of Valerie Plame and the subsequent Scooter Libby trial , followed by the suspension of his prison sentence, by the president of the United States who said that, in his opinion, the sentence was too harsh.

I personally knew one of the investigators "on the inside" in these 1992 corruption arrests. Power corrupt,s absolute power corrupts absolutely. I walked out of the screening of "American Gangster", two months ago, considering whether police do more harm than good, and whether society would be better off without them, at least as presently constituted:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Scars in a Proud Police Force; Troopers Come to Terms With Evidence-Tampering Scandal

By JACQUES STEINBERG,
Published: October 12, 1993

...Since last November three troopers have confessed to falsifying fingerprints in more than 30 criminal cases over nine years. Two more are awaiting trials, and at least one more is being investigated.

Experts in law enforcement say the department has moved effectively to deal with the problem, and they agree with department officials that the scandal is an aberration in a force with a good reputation.....

....Thus far, all five troopers who worked between 1982 and 1992 in the evidence identification unit at Troop C in Sidney, about 65 miles southeast of Ithaca, have been implicated in the faking of fingerprint evidence.

State police commanders first learned of the tampering after one of the troopers, David L. Harding, told of his misconduct in a job interview with the Central Intelligence Agency.....

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
February 4, 1997
Supervision of Troopers Faulted In Evidence-Tampering Scandal
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA

Concluding a four-year investigation into the worst scandal in state police history, a special prosecutor said today that troopers were able to plant evidence routinely in criminal cases across a broad swath of rural New York because they had no fear of detection by supervisors, who maintained a willful ignorance.

The special prosecutor, Nelson E. Roth, said an exhaustive review of thousands of cases found 36 from 1984 to 1992 in which six troopers fabricated evidence, usually by planting fingerprints, and 10 other cases that might have been tainted.

The list includes some of the most infamous crimes committed in the small towns and farming valleys of New York's Southern Tier.

Although the five troopers who admitted to planting evidence denied knowledge of one another's actions, Mr. Roth said he believed there was some connection among them.

''Anybody taking a look at the history here would have -- should have -- found it very difficult to believe that three generations of investigators in this unit fabricated evidence on a widespread and ongoing basis without any communication with one another, without teaching one another, without learning from one another,'' he said at a news conference here. ''I think it defies credibility.''

Five of the six investigators who were charged with crimes worked in Troop C, whose jurisdiction covers Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Otsego, Tioga and Tompkins Counties. In that region, as in much of the state, the state police are the primary handlers of felony cases.

The sixth investigator worked at Troop F, based in Middletown, and had long known three of the others.

Mr. Roth, who has expressed frustration during the investigation with the lack of cooperation he said he received from people in Troop C, pointed to several top officers there who he said knew or ought to have known what was going on.

One of those, former Lieut. Joseph G. Begley, now works for the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration at a laboratory in New York City. State officials said that the D.E.A. had assured them that the duties of Mr. Begley, who supervised investigators in Troop C from 1984 to 1989, have been curtailed because of Mr. Roth's investigation. Mr. Begley could not be reached by telephone at the D.E.A., and the agency declined comment.

Another former supervisor whose credibility Mr. Roth questioned, Gary Allen, retired in 1989 and has since been elected town justice in Newfield. Telephones at the town court were not answered this afternoon.

Two supervisory officers were forced to resign, and three others were demoted.

The discovery of the tainted evidence, Mr. Roth said, had led to some guilty people being retried or even set free, and had undermined confidence in the justice system.

Despite the difficulties he encountered, Mr. Roth said he was confident that, except for the one corrupt investigator in Troop F, the other 10 troops did not suffer from the criminal behavior and lack of oversight in Troop C. He also said he thought investigators had gone as far as they could in identifying tainted cases and corrupt officers.

The State Police Superintendent, James W. McMahon, said that changes in evidence-gathering rules that were made soon after the scandal broke should prevent a repetition of the problem. He also ordered today that any fingerprint match in a criminal case be referred to the central laboratory in Albany for confirmation.

Five of the six officers charged eventually pleaded guilty, and one of those five was also convicted by a jury in a separate evidence-tampering case. All five are serving prison terms. The sixth was acquitted twice in separate trials.

Mr. Roth, a lawyer from Ithaca, depicted the forensic evidence team at Troop C as a lawless outfit where rogue investigators were confident that they would never be second-guessed. Some kept the evidence later used against them, like falsified fingerprint cards, and others competed to see who could be first to plant evidence in high-profile cases.

One falsification involved the 1989 murders of the Harris family of Dryden, a town near Ithaca, a crime that rocked placid Tompkins County. In their home, Warren and Dolores Dryden, their daughter, Shelby, 15, and their son, Marc, 11, were bound and blindfolded, Shelby was raped and sodomized, all four were shot in the head and the house was doused with gasoline and burned.

State police investigators say that evidence led them to Michael Kinge, and that officers killed him when he pointed a shotgun at them as they moved to arrest him, contentions that have not been cast into doubt.

His mother, Shirley Kinge, a waitress, later admitted to using a credit card stolen from the Harris home.

David L. Harding and Robert M. Lishansky, Troop C investigators, later admitted they took fingerprints of Ms. Kinge from her job and claimed to have found them on gasoline cans used to set fire to the Harris home. She was convicted of burglary and arson and sentenced to 17 to 44 years in prison. She served two and a half years before it was revealed that she had been framed, and her conviction was overturned.

The state police rank of investigator is comparable to detective in New York City.

Typically, the investigators would wait until the lead investigators on a case had identified a suspect, and then would manufacture fingerprint evidence against them.

In one case, Mr. Roth said, Edward D. Pilus, the convicted investigator from Troop F, planted evidence when he did not have to. In a later investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation found a fingerprint of the suspect whom Mr. Pilus had framed. ''Either he was incompetent or lazy,'' Mr. Roth said. ''Apparently, he found it easier to fabricate evidence than to find it legitimately.''

The evidence-tampering began, he said, in 1984, with Craig D. Harvey, a Troop C evidence investigator, and later the lieutenant overseeing all 40 of the troop's investigators. Also convicted was former Lieut. Patrick F. O'Hara. The investigator who was acquitted, David M. Beers, was forced to resign in 1993.

The evidence-planting was discovered because Mr. Harding revealed it in a 1991 job interview with the Central Intelligence Agency. He was boasting about his ability to do covert operations. The C.I.A. informed the Justice Department, which failed to notify state officials for 14 months. More than half the tampering incidents occurred in those 14 months, Mr. Roth said today.

Justice Department officials have said the material sat on the desk of an employee who did not understand its significance.

As a result of the scandal, the state police changed rules to require that two investigators confirm the gathering of a fingerprint and that photographs of fingerprints be taken.

<h3>"Serving" side by side, here are the details of the arrests of two former commissioners of the largest police dept. in the U.S.,...leaders, role models!</h3>

Quote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ne...,4695742.story
Kerik to surrender in corruption probe

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:41 AM EST, November 9, 2007

Less than three years ago, Bernard Kerik stood proudly at a White House podium, being introduced as President Bush's pick to head the Department of Homeland Security.

Now Kerik stands to face what could be the decisive chapter in a downfall as stunning as his rise.

Kerik, a former New York police commissioner under then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani and a failed nominee for homeland security secretary, has been indicted by a federal grand jury on corruption charges, a person close to the investigation said. Kerik was expected to surrender to authorities Friday to be arraigned, a federal law enforcement official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.

The U.S. attorney's office said it would hold an 11:30 a.m. EST news conference with FBI and Internal Revenue Service officials in suburban White Plains "to announce an indictment of a former public official." The office had no further comment.

The charges in the indictment include mail and wire fraud, tax fraud, making false statements on a bank application, making false statements for a U.S. government position and theft of honest services, according to the person close to the investigation. The theft charge essentially accuses a government employee of abusing his position and defrauding the public.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the indictment was sealed and wasn't expected to be unsealed until Kerik's arraignment Friday.

The indictment does not include any charges stemming from allegations of eavesdropping related to former Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro's pursuit of information about whether her husband was having an affair, the person said.

Another person familiar with the investigation, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said Kerik would turn himself in Friday morning and be arraigned at noon in U.S. District Court.

Prosecutors had been presenting evidence to a federal grand jury in suburban White Plains for several months, asking jurors to consider charges including tax evasion and corruption.

The investigation of Kerik, 52, arose from allegations that, while a city official, he accepted $165,000 in renovations to his Bronx apartment, paid for by a mob-connected construction company that sought his help in winning city contracts.

Kerik pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor charge in state court, admitting that the renovations constituted an illegal gift from the construction firm. The plea spared him jail time and preserved his career as a security consultant, but his troubles resurfaced when federal authorities convened their own grand jury to investigate allegations that he failed to report as income tens of thousands of dollars in services from his friends and supporters.

Kerik was police commissioner on Sept. 11, 2001, and his efforts in response to the terrorist attacks helped burnish a career that came close to a Cabinet post.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/075...t,78709,2.html
Runnin' Scared
Likes Rudy, Likes Booty
Another of Giuliani's lovable cronies comes to the ex-mayor's defense in a time of need
by Wayne Barrett
December 26th, 2007 12:13 PM

We already know all about Bernie Kerik's highest-form-of-flattery mimicry—his infamous seizure of a Ground Zero apartment, set aside for first responders, for a juggling act of escapades with two, as Rudy would put it, "very special friends." And then there's the saga of Ed Norris, who rose to deputy commissioner for operations at the NYPD in his mid-30s under Giuliani and became Baltimore's police commissioner in 2000.

Norris, who was still at NYPD headquarters when the Judi Nathan adventure began in 1999, pled guilty to federal charges in 2004 that he had used a supplemental police fund in Baltimore as if it were his own ATM, "financing romantic encounters with several different women." The original indictment referred to eight women entertained by the police chief on the public tab, but that was later reduced to six. Prosecutors also claimed that the married Norris used the apartment of his chief of staff for workday liaisons that were called "naps," sometimes occurring several times a day. Within months of taking over as police commissioner, he billed an October 2000 stay with "female number one" at the Best Western Seaport in New York to the fund, according to the indictment. The estimated $20,000 in playtime billings included luxury hotels and gifts from Victoria's Secret, and his final plea included admitting to looting the funds and not paying taxes on the income.

A folk hero in certain quarters of Baltimore, Norris returned to the city after doing six months in federal prison and became the top-rated radio talk-show host there, declaring in one newspaper interview that all some people know about him is his supposed penchant for "gifts for girls all over the United States." A shaved-head look-alike for Kerik, Norris is a regular on the HBO series The Wire, playing a homicide detective often furious with Baltimore's powers that be. He was such a successful police commissioner that Republican governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. made him the head of the Maryland State Police in 2003, just months before his indictment.

Norris was an NYPD deputy commissioner for nearly five years under Giuliani, in charge of developing and implementing anti-crime strategies. "I met with Rudy every Thursday," briefing him on the week's crime data, Norris said in a Voice interview. As recently as late 2006, Norris saw Giuliani at a political fundraiser for Ehrlich, who is the mid-Atlantic chair for Giuliani's presidential campaign. "I was emceeing the event," says Norris. "Rudy gave me a big hug. He was very happy for me." Fresh from prison at the time, Norris was still on parole, which will not end until next month. When Politico.com broke the story about how the Giuliani administration hid costs associated with providing then-mistress Judi Nathan with police escorts, Norris went on the air to defend Giuliani. "I said that I didn't know what the real allegations were. He was entitled to 24-hour police protection anyway, and I can't imagine he knew how it was being billed," Norris says. "I definitely defended him. I know what it's like to be falsely accused." A recent Times story raised doubts about just how much of the hidden Giuliani expenditures were attributable to these Hamptons trips to see Judi. But no one doubts that, regardless of how the trips were billed, the city spent a small fortune between 1999 and 2001 to bring the new lovers together....

...and here is the story of the end of a Sherriff who made headlines a few years ago in the investigation of the abduction of a young girl. Word is, he has refused to resign his position, and is still being paid, because, as he says, "I am innocent until proven guitly".

Quote:

http://losangeles.fbi.gov/dojpressre...a103007usa.htm
United States Attorney’s Office
Central District of California

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2007

WWW.USDOJ.GOV/USAO/CAC

CONTACT: THOM MROZEK

ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF NAMED IN FEDERAL INDICTMENT
THAT ALLEGES LONG-RUNNING CORRUPTION SCHEME
INVOLVING FAVORS TO FRIENDS WHO PAID BRIBES

SANTA ANA, Calif. – Michael S. Carona, the elected sheriff-coroner of Orange County, has been named in a wide-ranging corruption indictment unsealed today that accuses him and several close associates of scheming to exploit Carona’s position for personal benefit, including accepting cash and appointing to the position of assistant sheriff an unqualified businessman who paid bribes.

The 10-count indictment charges Carona; his wife, Deborah Carona, who was appointed to the Orange County Fair Board of Directors while he was sheriff; and attorney Debra Victoria Hoffman, who as part of the scheme was appointed to the State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention and the California Council on Criminal Justice, which Sheriff Carona chaired. All three, who, among other things, are accused of concealing the illegal benefits they received, are expected to surrender to federal authorities at the United States Courthouse in Santa Ana tomorrow morning.

In addition to the indictment, prosecutors today unsealed charges previously filed against two Carona associates, businessman Donald Haidl and attorney George H. Jaramillo, who as part of the scheme were made assistant sheriffs. In addition to criminal information, prosecutors unsealed the plea agreements under which Jaramillo and Haidl previously pleaded guilty. Jaramillo pleaded guilty to honest services mail fraud and tax fraud, and Haidl pleaded guilty to a tax offense.

The indictment alleges a conspiracy in which the five defendants schemed to get Carona elected and to corruptly use the office of sheriff to enrich themselves. In addition to the conspiracy, the indictment charges Carona with witness tampering, including his attempt to convince Haidl, as recently as August, to lie to a federal grand jury.

According to the indictment, Haidl illicitly paid cash—specifically, regular monthly payments of $1,000 in cash—and other benefits to Carona, his campaign and his friends in exchange for full access to the resources of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Carona also allegedly provided benefits to Haidl’s friends and family, including Haidl’s son, who was arrested twice during Carona’s tenure.

The indictment outlines a conspiracy that began in 1998, when Haidl allegedly made several $1,000 “conduit contributions” to Carona’s campaign. The illegal contributions were made with checks that were written by people who were reimbursed by Haidl, which concealed the true source of the contributions. Soon after the June 1998 election in which Carona was elected Sheriff, Haidl allegedly financed a Lake Tahoe vacation for Carona, Jaramillo and their spouses. And for years following his election, according to the indictment, Haidl made regular payments of approximately $1,000 per month in cash to Carona and Jaramillo. In total the conspirators, including Carona, accepted cash, gifts, loans and other compensation that totaled more than $350,000.

In January 1999, Carona appointed Haidl to the position of assistant sheriff for reserves. Around the same time, Carona caused family members, friends and business associates of Haidl to be made reserve deputies. Around this time, Haidl caused Carona and Jaramillo to be appointed to a newly created “board of directors” at a company owned by Haidl’s uncle. Carona and Jaramillo received $1,000 monthly checks from the company, even though they did not provide any services to the company.

During Carona’s tenure, the relationship between the sheriff and Haidl allegedly continued with a series of other illegal acts, including a transaction in which Haidl gave a boat to Carona in 2001, Carona provided preferential treatment for Haidl’s son, and Carona and his associates used Haidl’s yacht and private plane.

Haidl also allegedly gave Hoffman and Jaramillo a $110,000 cashier’s check the day before Carona was elected sheriff in 1998, money that was used to revive Jaramillo, Hoffman and Associates, a law firm that Jaramillo and Hoffman had founded. A portion of this loan was repaid through an agreement in which Carona and Jaramillo, among others, would refer legal cases—including those involving Sheriff’s Department employees—to another lawyer, who would kick back legal fees to members of the conspiracy. In 1999 and 2000, Haidl also allegedly gave additional checks worth approximately $65,000 to Hoffman at Carona’s request.

The indictment goes on to allege that Carona and Jaramillo entered into an agreement with the owners of a paintball business in which the businessmen would pay tens of thousands of dollars in cash in exchange for Carona using his influence to help the businessmen obtain land in Orange County for a recreation facility.

Carona, Hoffman and Deborah Carona, covered-up and concealed the cash payments, loans, gifts and other benefits from Haidl and others through false statements under penalty of perjury in their Statements of Economic Interests and other public documents, allegations that are part of the conspiracy charges against each of them and the honest services mail fraud charges against Carona and Hoffman.

Carona is also accused of witness tampering, which includes encouraging Haidl to give false testimony to a federal grand jury investigating the sheriff. The indictment alleges that as recently as August 13 Carona, in a recorded conversation, encouraged Haidl to withhold evidence and to make false statements to the grand jury.

Hoffman is accused of bankruptcy fraud for failing to disclose various economic interests, including the loan and payments from Haidl, among other omissions.

In proceedings on March 6, 2007, that were unsealed today, Haidl pleaded guilty to filing a fraudulent federal income tax return for 2002 after using hundreds of thousands of dollars from partnerships, trust accounts and businesses he controlled to pay some of his son’s legal fees and failing to report this money as income, which caused a tax loss of between $200,000 and $400,000. In his plea agreement, Haidl admitted making illegal payments to Carona and Jaramillo. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford on June 23, 2008, at which time he faces a maximum statutory sentence of three years in federal prison.

Jaramillo pleaded guilty on March 13, 2007, to filing a false tax return for 1999 and to honest services mail fraud for filing a false financial statement required because he too was a member of the State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention. In his plea agreement, Jaramillo admitted that Haidl made cash payments to Jaramillo from 1998 through 2002, Haidl paid off Jaramillo’s lease on a Mercedes-Benz, and Jaramillo filed a series of Statements of Economic Interest that failed to report, among other things, money, gifts, and loans he received from Haidl. Jaramillo is also scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Guilford on June 23, 2008, at which time he faces a statutory maximum sentence of 23 years in federal prison.

“This investigation did not focus on career personnel with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, but centered on elected and appointed individuals who allegedly abused their power and violated the public’s trust,” said Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI in Los Angeles, Peter Brust. “The charges alleged in the indictment never called into question the integrity of rank-and-file Orange County Sheriffs Department personnel. FBI Agents and Orange County Sheriff's deputies work hand in hand every day combating crime on many fronts. The FBI is committed to continuing these strong relationships that exist in the form of joint task forces devoted to fighting terrorism, organized criminal enterprises, the exploitation of children, bank robberies and other criminal activity in Orange County.”

Debra D. King, Special Agent in Charge of IRS – Criminal Investigation in Los Angeles, stated: “Nobody is above the law, including public officials. Crimes committed by these figures violate the public trust. The indictment of Michael Carona on conspiracy, witness tampering, and public corruption-related charges serves to assure the public that their officials are, and will be, held accountable for their actions. Further, the indictment announced today helps to assure the public that their officials cannot use their office for their own financial enrichment or personal political gain.”

Peter C. Anderson, United States Trustee for the Central District of California (Region 16), stated: “By working together with the United States Attorney's Office and the federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S. Trustee Program is able to fulfill its mission of protecting and preserving the integrity of the bankruptcy system.”

The cases against Carona and the other defendants are the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and IRS-Criminal Investigation, which received substantial assistance from the U.S. Trustee Program, which is the component of the Justice Department that protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system by overseeing case administration and litigating to enforce the bankruptcy laws.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701681_pf.html
FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes
Lee Wayne Hunt is one of hundreds of defendants whose convictions are in question now that FBI forensic evidence has been discredited.

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 18, 2007; A01

Hundreds of defendants sitting in prisons nationwide have been convicted with the help of an FBI forensic tool that was discarded more than two years ago. But the FBI lab has yet to take steps to alert the affected defendants or courts, even as the window for appealing convictions is closing, a joint investigation by The Washington Post and "60 Minutes" has found.

The science, known as comparative bullet-lead analysis, was first used after President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963. The technique used chemistry to link crime-scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.

In 2004, however, the nation's most prestigious scientific body concluded that variations in the manufacturing process rendered the FBI's testimony about the science "unreliable and potentially misleading." Specifically, the National Academy of Sciences said that decades of FBI statements to jurors linking a particular bullet to those found in a suspect's gun or cartridge box were so overstated that such testimony should be considered "misleading under federal rules of evidence."

A year later, the bureau abandoned the analysis.

But the FBI lab has never gone back to determine how many times its scientists misled jurors. Internal memos show that the bureau's managers were aware by 2004 that testimony had been overstated in a large number of trials. In a smaller number of cases, the experts had made false matches based on a faulty statistical analysis of the elements contained in different lead samples, documents show.

"We cannot afford to be misleading to a jury," the lab director wrote to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III in late summer 2005 in a memo outlining why the bureau was abandoning the science. "We plan to discourage prosecutors from using our previous results in future prosecutions."

Despite those private concerns, the bureau told defense lawyers in a general letter dated Sept. 1, 2005, that although it was ending the technique, it "still firmly supports the scientific foundation of bullet lead analysis." And in at least two cases, the bureau has tried to help state prosecutors defend past convictions by using court filings that experts say are still misleading. The government has fought releasing the list of the estimated 2,500 cases over three decades in which it performed the analysis.

For the majority of affected prisoners, the typical two-to-four-year window to appeal their convictions based on new scientific evidence is closing.

Dwight E. Adams, the now-retired FBI lab director who ended the technique, said the government has an obligation to release all the case files, to independently review the expert testimony and to alert courts to any errors that could have affected a conviction.....

Our military sent Bernard Kerik over to Iraq to set up initial training of new Iraqi police forces in 2003. He did a helluva job....look at the corrutpion and effectiveness of Iraqi police today. It's a game of authority and the lining of pockets. The folks with "faith in the system" are made to look like jackasses by these corrupt, ambitious thugs. Wake up. Checks and balances, question all authority, demand open government. Settle for nothing less!

Herk · 12-27-2007, 07:58 PM

I'm not totally anticop. I'm pretty cooperative and very appreciative. They perform a good service, and some of them are good. You are absolutely correct, though. What you say is exactly how it seems to be implemented. So unfortunate. I wish people would vote for people that really cared about freedom more than anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Long ? Hmmm...."long" is in the eyes of the beholder..... I'll edit this shortly with a comment relevant to the subject...it's 10:50 PM EST, be back, I promise!

Right on. I'll look forward to it.

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 08:13 PM

You behaved correctly. It's impressive to know that there are still people who are up on civics and rights. They were trying old tactics to scare you, and you didn't budge. They can't do shit.

Look at it this way: they were using dishonest tactics to try and get your sister, and you stopped them in their tracks. Be proud of yourself, and email your local news paper with the story. Call the email: "Local police threaten to invade home of innocent people and take their 6 year old daughter." That'd be if you want to fight fire with fire.

Plan9 · 12-27-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You behaved correctly. It's impressive to know that there are still people who are up on civics and rights. They were trying old tactics to scare you, and you didn't budge. They can't do shit.

filtherton · 12-27-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

I'm not totally anticop. I'm pretty cooperative and very appreciative. They perform a good service, and some of them are good. You are absolutely correct, though. What you say is exactly how it seems to be implemented. So unfortunate. I wish people would vote for people that really cared about freedom more than anything else.

I'm not anticop either. There have been plenty of times where i've been thankful for the cops. They're good for what they're good for, and sometimes they're horrible for it too. I'll just never get beyond the whole "if you wanted to, you could probably kill me and get away with nothing more than a paid vacation" when it comes to interacting with them.

sprocket · 12-27-2007, 08:18 PM

Good for you for standing up for yourself. Good luck to your sister.

Not a fan of the war on drugs myself, so regardless of your sisters motives for having the morphine, its ridiculous that the government has to get involved at all.

Generally the police try to be antagonistic on purpose, to throw you off guard, make you admit something, or just to piss you off so they have probable cause to arrest you and search your place. Its all mind games, really.

Herk · 12-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You behaved correctly. It's impressive to know that there are still people who are up on civics and rights. They were trying old tactics to scare you, and you didn't budge. They can't do shit.

Look at it this way: they were using dishonest tactics to try and get your sister, and you stopped them in their tracks. Be proud of yourself, and email your local news paper with the story. Call the email: "Local police threaten to invade home of innocent people and take their 6 year old daughter." That'd be if you want to fight fire with fire.

Thanks, I'm always walking around saying "willravel for president" to my wife because I read your posts and agree with you on nearly everything. It's a compliment that you think I acted appropriately.

As far as fighting back. No way. They didn't cause me any harm, so I wouldn't to them, and I've already had enough trouble with my local school district. I've got no fight left for a minute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Good for you for standing up for yourself. Good luck to your sister.

Not a fan of the war on drugs myself, so regardless of your sisters motives for having the morphine, its ridiculous that the government has to get involved at all.

Generally the police try to be antagonistic on purpose, to throw you off guard, make you admit something, or just to piss you off so they have probable cause to arrest you and search your place. Its all mind games, really.

Thank you, and well put.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'm not anticop either. There have been plenty of times where i've been thankful for the cops. They're good for what they're good for, and sometimes they're horrible for it too. I'll just never get beyond the whole "if you wanted to, you could probably kill me and get away with nothing more than a paid vacation" when it comes to interacting with them.

Nice!

Plan9 · 12-27-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

"We're going to get a search warrant, bust down your door, children will be scared, put you all on the floor at gun point, search your property, then take all of you to jail, and your child(a princess, she's 6) to DFS."

That kinda of mentality is to be used in the 5th grade by bullies, not by "public servants." Where the fuck does any police officer get off saying that?

Whether they'll end up doing it or not... what's the point of saying it?

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Thanks, I'm always walking around saying "willravel for president" to my wife because I read your posts and agree with you on nearly everything. It's a compliment that you think I acted appropriately.

You guys... *blushes*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

As far as fighting back. No way. They didn't cause me any harm, so I wouldn't to them, and I've already had enough trouble with my local school district. I've got no fight left for a minute.

That's your call of course. The point I didn't make clear is that if this happens to upstanding and knowledgeable citizens like yourself, it happens to less educated people who will likely fall victim to their mischievous trickery. It's these people I am worried for. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the police are often honest and brave, but allowing them too much power makes them as dangerous as those they apprehend.

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 09:21 PM

Lets play devils advocate here, and who better than the right wing robot devil.

The police go to serve a warrant.

Brother says shes not there, and won't give they a way to get in touch with her even though thats her known address.

He is in fact protecting a fugitive. Its in his rights not to give out her phone number, but that doesn't change it.

Brother is annoyed cop would say that he is harboring a fugitive, but its true.

Police tell the truth on what happens if they get a search warrant and shes there as the brother would be arrested. I'm not sure what a "dangerous felony warrant" is exactly, but my guess is that when 'dangerous' is in the title it will be at gunpoint when they make the arrest. This is done for the polices protection as well as those being arrested so no one does something stupid.

The cops then leave, not entering the premises and the sister is called by the brother and turns herself in.

Funny how often I've seen this sort of thing on COPS and its always so different from the officers side.

No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me.

pan6467 · 12-27-2007, 09:21 PM

A couple things...... not taking the cops side but a couple things stick out at me.

1) how much Morphine did she have when she was busted? If it was felony possession in most states that means enough to distribute (i.e. sell), but if they can't prove she was going to sell it'd just be possession. What degree felony?

2) After 6 months you and your sister didn't hear anything from the courts? What about the bail money, surely you would have cared about that and followed up as to where it was.

3) Your sister could very feasibly been lying to you about a lot of things, especially if "you don't keep track of her." If I paid someone's bail you better be damned sure I'm keeping tabs on their every movement and keeping track of what is going on with the courts.

4) After talking to lawyers, your sister concluded the police were being assholes, what did the lawyers say. Felony drug possession doesn't just go away and those charges aren't pressed just because the cops were "assholes".

It sounds to me like your sister missed court, became a "fugitive" and the police were trying to locate her. I have a feeling given the questions I posed above, there is far more to this story from your sister and you probably need to get it from her.

It also sounds like the cops were trying to scare tactic you more than anything. Scare you into telling everything and at the very least calling her.

Not saying it's right, but from what you gave, it sounds like she jumped bail (hence telling you, you were helping a fugitive), if it was felony drugs and she had had close to the limit to distribute but not quite, they may wonder what goes on in your house.

You may want to talk to a lawyer and see what course of action you can take against the police, they did go to far, even if it was only a scare tactic.

You best get your sister to be honest with you, because it sounds like she hasn't been.

Plan9 · 12-27-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me.

Oh, I'd rather they operate by procedure instead of dropping cute threats.

If they can convince a judge that a search warrant is needed... go for it.

Powertripping bitter cops take things just as personally as dirtbag civilians.

There shouldn't be this much feeling involved in the law. It's pretty cut 'n dry in cases like this: Get a mofo'n warrant if you have enough evidence.

Ustwo · 12-27-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Oh, I'd rather they operate by procedure instead of dropping cute threats.

If they can convince a judge that a search warrant is needed... go for it.

Powertripping bitter cops take things just as personally as dirtbag civilians.

There shouldn't be this much feeling involved in the law. It's pretty cut 'n dry in cases like this: Get a mofo'n warrant if you have enough evidence.

So you tell me whats better.

Scaring some guy a little so he gets his sister to turn herself in, or pretending everything is cool, leaving, getting the warrant and while I don't know the procedure for a 'dangerous felony warrant' my guess is that it could very well be EXACTLY as the cops described.

They were being assholes and scary and doing him a favor at the same time.

I also think pan is correct in his possibilities. I think there is more to this then a 'we will call you if we decide to press charges' going on with the sister.

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 09:39 PM

Anyone with the common sense and knowledge to respond the way Herk did, obviously knowing his rights, would probably also know the consequences for breaking the law. The scare tactics were intended to scare them into giving up their rights. That's a bad thing. Rights are there for a reason: to maintain balance. Just as they had a right to say, "No you can't come in and we don't know where she is.", the cops had a right to go get a warrant. No warrant? That's because there's not enough evidence for one. Bam. Justice.

pan6467 · 12-27-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Anyone with the common sense and knowledge to respond the way Herk did, obviously knowing his rights, would probably also know the consequences for breaking the law. The scare tactics were intended to scare them into giving up their rights. That's a bad thing. Rights are there for a reason: to maintain balance. Just as they had a right to say, "No you can't come in and we don't know where she is.", the cops had a right to go get a warrant. No warrant? That's because there's not enough evidence for one. Bam. Justice.

I'm sure with felony drug charges and skipping bail the police had more than enough to get a warrant. Warrants are not hard to get these days especially if drugs are involved.

We can only go by what he said, and again, felony drug charges DO NOT JUST DISAPPEAR and are not even threatened unless there is something there, cops don't file drug charges just because they are assholes.

In the end the cops got his sister. They may have wanted to save Herk the embarrassment of having doors kicked in, the family charged with harboring and DFS getting involved.

Still talk to a lawyer first thing tomorrow and see what he/she says.

I still say based on what Herk has given there is far more to the story, Herk may have given us all he knows but his sister definately has more to her story.

The big thing for me is 8 months pass by and no one is looking at what happened to the bail money?

Sounds to me like sis skipped court, jumped bail, she could have intercepted mail regarding the court date and her jumping bail, etc.

The key is to see what kind of bail she gets now, if she jumped she will go to arraignment straight away and be held without bond until her court date.

Interesting story but needs more for any of us to achieve a true understanding, including maybe even Herk.

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'm sure with felony drug charges and skipping bail the police had more than enough to get a warrant. Warrants are not hard to get these days especially if drugs are involved.

Who said anything about skipping bail? That assumes quite a bit.

I had a warrant once because I was stupid and forgot to pay a speeding ticket when I was 17. A year later, I ended up having to pay like $900. Ouch. I didn't find out about it until I received a second notice that there was a warrant out (the first one? No idea, never got it).

pan6467 · 12-27-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Who said anything about skipping bail? That assumes quite a bit.

I had a warrant once because I was stupid and forgot to pay a speeding ticket when I was 17. A year later, I ended up having to pay like $900. Ouch. I didn't find out about it until I received a second notice that there was a warrant out (the first one? No idea, never got it).

Not really, he said they bailed her out then (8 months ago when the original event happened). He talks about how 6 months came and went but he never says word 1 about the bail again. If they got the bail returned from the courts there would have still been some form of trial/resolution, if that happened then why didn't Herk mention it?

I deal with PO's, drug dealers, addicts and cops every day. There is more to this story and if Herk is being honest with us (and we have no reason to doubt him) then there is more to this story on his sister's part and the law's.

There are too many holes and questions in the story. The biggest being what about the bail. Trust me after that 6 month period I'd be wanting my bail money refunded or finding out why it wasn't. How did the cops know she lived there?

There is a huge difference between not paying a speeding ticket and felony drug charges. To even compare the 2 is laughable.

Willravel · 12-27-2007, 10:12 PM

Calm down there with the laughable thing. My point is simply that the PD is not always on the ball about warrants. It's a valid point.

Neeways: Herk... did you get your money back? Did it come from your sister's pocket 8 months ago or was it recently?

That should answer your concerns, pan.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets play devils advocate here, and who better than the right wing robot devil.

The police go to serve a warrant.

Brother says shes not there, and won't give they a way to get in touch with her even though thats her known address.

He is in fact protecting a fugitive. Its in his rights not to give out her phone number, but that doesn't change it.

Brother is annoyed cop would say that he is harboring a fugitive, but its true.

Police tell the truth on what happens if they get a search warrant and shes there as the brother would be arrested. I'm not sure what a "dangerous felony warrant" is exactly, but my guess is that when 'dangerous' is in the title it will be at gunpoint when they make the arrest. This is done for the polices protection as well as those being arrested so no one does something stupid.

The cops then leave, not entering the premises and the sister is called by the brother and turns herself in.

Funny how often I've seen this sort of thing on COPS and its always so different from the officers side.

No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me.

hmm, I don't see how I was harboring a fugitive. I guess I always assumed this meant you had knowledge of the presence of a fugitive, and that you did nothing to inform authorities.

Secondly, that wasn't the best possible outcome. The best outcome would have been the same except that the cops would not have treated me like assholes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

1) how much Morphine did she have when she was busted? If it was felony possession in most states that means enough to distribute (i.e. sell), but if they can't prove she was going to sell it'd just be possession. What degree felony?

I don't know what degree. She had one bottle. As for how many were in that bottle. I never asked. I don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

2) After 6 months you and your sister didn't hear anything from the courts? What about the bail money, surely you would have cared about that and followed up as to where it was.

What about it? We got it back. She was released. No date set. Released. Upon release, she was instructed that within six months they would decide whether or not to charge her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

3) Your sister could very feasibly been lying to you about a lot of things, especially if "you don't keep track of her." If I paid someone's bail you better be damned sure I'm keeping tabs on their every movement and keeping track of what is going on with the courts.

Just because I don't keep tabs on my sis, doesn't mean she isn't my sis. We talk daily. No, I don't have to keep track of her every move. I paid her bail yes, and right up until that money was refunded I would have ensured she showed up to court as that was what the conditions of bail are, but after a release and bail refund she is a grown lady and not my responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

4) After talking to lawyers, your sister concluded the police were being assholes, what did the lawyers say. Felony drug possession doesn't just go away and those charges aren't pressed just because the cops were "assholes".

I believe the lawyer basically said that the charge didn't even come close to fitting the crime, but I don't remember what the exact charge was. I've been telling myself those same things. It makes no sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It sounds to me like your sister missed court, became a "fugitive" and the police were trying to locate her. I have a feeling given the questions I posed above, there is far more to this story from your sister and you probably need to get it from her.

It also sounds like the cops were trying to scare tactic you more than anything. Scare you into telling everything and at the very least calling her.

Not saying it's right, but from what you gave, it sounds like she jumped bail (hence telling you, you were helping a fugitive), if it was felony drugs and she had had close to the limit to distribute but not quite, they may wonder what goes on in your house.

You may want to talk to a lawyer and see what course of action you can take against the police, they did go to far, even if it was only a scare tactic.

You best get your sister to be honest with you, because it sounds like she hasn't been.

She may not have been honest in all cases, but this is neither here nor there regarding the actions of some deputies, regarding how they treated me. I WAS honest in all cases. As for missing court, nope she did everything as told. BTW, this warrant was not out until December 8. If she missed court if would have come a lot sooner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So you tell me whats better.

Scaring some guy a little so he gets his sister to turn herself in, or pretending everything is cool, leaving, getting the warrant and while I don't know the procedure for a 'dangerous felony warrant' my guess is that it could very well be EXACTLY as the cops described.

They were being assholes and scary and doing him a favor at the same time.

I also think pan is correct in his possibilities. I think there is more to this then a 'we will call you if we decide to press charges' going on with the sister.

Wow, the fact that you see this as a favor really disappoints me. The fact that any of my fellow countrymen can feel like the cops are doing me a favor by trying to scare water out of a dry sponge by being deceitful is upsetting. I hope not many feel this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'm sure with felony drug charges and skipping bail the police had more than enough to get a warrant. Warrants are not hard to get these days especially if drugs are involved.

We can only go by what he said, and again, felony drug charges DO NOT JUST DISAPPEAR and are not even threatened unless there is something there, cops don't file drug charges just because they are assholes.

In the end the cops got his sister. They may have wanted to save Herk the embarrassment of having doors kicked in, the family charged with harboring and DFS getting involved.

Still talk to a lawyer first thing tomorrow and see what he/she says.

I still say based on what Herk has given there is far more to the story, Herk may have given us all he knows but his sister definately has more to her story.

The big thing for me is 8 months pass by and no one is looking at what happened to the bail money?

Sounds to me like sis skipped court, jumped bail, she could have intercepted mail regarding the court date and her jumping bail, etc.

The key is to see what kind of bail she gets now, if she jumped she will go to arraignment straight away and be held without bond until her court date.

Interesting story but needs more for any of us to achieve a true understanding, including maybe even Herk.

Oh my gosh. She had a bottle of scripted drugs in her purse in transport to her landlord, and got charge with trafficking a narcotic. As for the bail money, you're dead wrong, but I've already replied to this. The bail she got was $1000, and she is already out with a court date next week. This just makes it obvious that she didn't skip out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Not really, he said they bailed her out then (8 months ago when the original event happened). He talks about how 6 months came and went but he never says word 1 about the bail again. If they got the bail returned from the courts there would have still been some form of trial/resolution, if that happened then why didn't Herk mention it?

I deal with PO's, drug dealers, addicts and cops every day. There is more to this story and if Herk is being honest with us (and we have no reason to doubt him) then there is more to this story on his sister's part and the law's.

There are too many holes and questions in the story. The biggest being what about the bail. Trust me after that 6 month period I'd be wanting my bail money refunded or finding out why it wasn't. How did the cops know she lived there?

There is a huge difference between not paying a speeding ticket and felony drug charges. To even compare the 2 is laughable.

First of all, to compare the two isn't laughable. We are still talking about how our country handles crimes, no matter the magnitude, and it shouldn't be by lying and scaring.

Let me just clarify here, that my only complaint was how I was handled. NOT, how the cops have handled my sister. I don't think that has anything to do with how they treated me. Even if she killed somebody. I did nothing wrong.

ratbastid · 12-28-2007, 04:53 AM

You know, I can muster up some compassion for the position these cops were in. It's a tough job, being a police officer. You're given a badge and a gun, and told to go out and stop crime based entirely on your wits and your ability to apply force--both physical and psychological. It's no surprise that they sometimes end up employing tactics like this. Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it.

You absolutely CAN be charged with harboring/aiding a fugitive without having prior knowledge of the person's fugitive status. Your ignorance may become a mitigating factor in court (or the judge might dismiss outright), but that doesn't necessarily prevent your being hauled in for it.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You know, I can muster up some compassion for the position these cops were in. It's a tough job, being a police officer. You're given a badge and a gun, and told to go out and stop crime based entirely on your wits and your ability to apply force--both physical and psychological. It's no surprise that they sometimes end up employing tactics like this. Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it.

You absolutely CAN be charged with harboring/aiding a fugitive without having prior knowledge of the person's fugitive status. Your ignorance may become a mitigating factor in court (or the judge might dismiss outright), but that doesn't necessarily prevent your being hauled in for it.

Lots of people have tough jobs. Many tougher than theirs. Does that make it ok for them to treat you and I disrespectfully?
How am I ignorant? What did I ignore? How did I harbor a fugitive? I did not know her whereabouts, and did not lie to them. I immediately called my sister and reported the mans phone number to her. I'm very curious to hear anybody explain how I harbored a fugitive.

host · 12-28-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Lets play devils advocate here, and who better than the right wing robot devil.

The police go to serve a warrant.

Brother says shes not there, and won't give they a way to get in touch with her even though thats her known address.

He is in fact protecting a fugitive. Its in his rights not to give out her phone number, but that doesn't change it.

Brother is annoyed cop would say that he is harboring a fugitive, but its true.

Police tell the truth on what happens if they get a search warrant and shes there as the brother would be arrested. I'm not sure what a "dangerous felony warrant" is exactly, but my guess is that when 'dangerous' is in the title it will be at gunpoint when they make the arrest. This is done for the polices protection as well as those being arrested so no one does something stupid.

The cops then leave, not entering the premises and the sister is called by the brother and turns herself in.

Funny how often I've seen this sort of thing on COPS and its always so different from the officers side.

No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me.

Ustwo, remember your stance in this matter?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108229

Herk, it is possible that the cops who challenged you were bluffing:

Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
....The difficult decisions for prosecutors lie at the margins of criminal involvement, when a family member has acted as an accessory, particularly as an accessory after the fact.3 Typical charging options in this scenario would be obstruction of justice or hindering prosecution, harboring a fugitive, or accessory after the fact for states that retain that charging option.

a) Exemptions for Family Members Harboring Fugitives

Remarkably, in fourteen states, prosecution of family members for harboring fugitives is not an option, regardless of the nature of the crime or the extent of the family member’s involvement. These states typically exempt spouses, parents and grandparents, children and grandchildren, <h3>and siblings from prosecution for providing assistance to a family member after the commission of a crime.</h3> An additional four states reduce liability for an immediate family member but do not exempt them from prosecution entirely. Florida’s statutory exemption for family members is one interesting example. It forbids prosecution of spouses, parents, grandparents, children, or grandchildren for helping an “offender avoid or escape detection, arrest or punishment,” with one important exception. The exemption does not apply if the primary offender is alleged to have committed child abuse or neglect or the murder of a child under the age of 18, “unless the court finds the person [claiming the exemption] is a victim of domestic violence.”

These statutes are significantly broader than the exemption which existed at common law, which forbade only the prosecution of a wife as an accessory, but not the prosecution of a husband for aiding his felon wife or the prosecution of other family members. Despite the popularity of the broader exemptions among many states, the Model Penal Code drafters rejected the inclusion of a family member exemption in its accessory provision, “in part on the ground that this is a factor that can be taken into account at sentencing.” The drafters also noted that “exemption rules create trial difficulties if the government bears the burden of proving that none of the specified relations exist.”

No federal law currently provides a family member with an exemption from prosecution. Some federal courts, however, have at least expressed sympathy to the pleas of family members charged with aiding an accused relative. For example, in United States v. Oley, although upholding the right of the government to charge a wife with harboring her fugitive husband, the court remarked that “[i]t would undoubtedly be difficult to obtain a conviction charging wives with harboring their husbands” and that “it might be regarded as inhuman and unnatural on the part of a wife to surrender her husband to the authorities and contrary to the instincts of human beings to do so.” Some states have grappled with the constitutionality of the family exemption. For example, in upholding Florida’s statute against an equal protection challenge, a Florida appeals court emphasized “society’s interest in safeguarding the family unit from unnecessary fractional pressures” and applauded the legislature’s decision to “confer[] immunity so that these individuals need never choose between love of family and obedience to the law.” The New Mexico Supreme Court similarly upheld its state statute against a constitutional challenge, but did not engage in any sustained analysis and instead simply stated that the statute’s classifications were reasonable and thus consistent with the Equal Protection Clause...

ratbastid · 12-28-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Lots of people have tough jobs. Many tougher than theirs. Does that make it ok for them to treat you and I disrespectfully?

Hence my saying, "Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

How am I ignorant? What did I ignore? How did I harbor a fugitive? I did not know her whereabouts, and did not lie to them. I immediately called my sister and reported the mans phone number to her. I'm very curious to hear anybody explain how I harbored a fugitive.

I was speaking hypothetically, in response to earlier commentary. It's clear from your clarification (particularly about the refunded bail money) that you couldn't be accused of that. Even so, that wouldn't necessarily prevent you being arrested and charged with the offense, even though it wouldn't stick in court. If you'd been less polite and respectful in the assertion of your rights, that might have been the exact outcome.

The_Jazz · 12-28-2007, 06:06 AM

Herk, sorry that you had to go through this. Clearly it wasn't fun and you're still upset about it.

The world would be a much better place if we could wave a magic wand and make all the assholes disappear. That's not going to happen.

That said, I keep coming back to the idea of "words and deeds". They may have said disrespectful things in a disrespectful tone, but there's no law against that. They didn't actually DO anything other than knock on your door. They didn't break any laws or violate your rights.

Could this have been handled better? Oh god yeah. There's no question about that. Did they actually do anything WRONG, though? That, I think, is a much tougher question to answer.

As for you, I think you acted completely appropriately and within your rights. For that you received some threats that proved to be empty.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Hence my saying, "Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it."

I was speaking hypothetically, in response to earlier commentary. It's clear from your clarification (particularly about the refunded bail money) that you couldn't be accused of that. Even so, that wouldn't necessarily prevent you being arrested and charged with the offense, even though it wouldn't stick in court. If you'd been less polite and respectful in the assertion of your rights, that might have been the exact outcome.

Well then, you and I appear to agree. Thanks.

Ustwo · 12-28-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Ustwo, remember your stance in this matter?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108229

OK I'll bite, explain the relevance to the topic at hand. You have already tied this into Bush and Iraq, I can't WAIT to see what you do with this one.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Herk, sorry that you had to go through this. Clearly it wasn't fun and you're still upset about it.

The world would be a much better place if we could wave a magic wand and make all the assholes disappear. That's not going to happen.

That said, I keep coming back to the idea of "words and deeds". They may have said disrespectful things in a disrespectful tone, but there's no law against that. They didn't actually DO anything other than knock on your door. They didn't break any laws or violate your rights.

Could this have been handled better? Oh god yeah. There's no question about that. Did they actually do anything WRONG, though? That, I think, is a much tougher question to answer.

As for you, I think you acted completely appropriately and within your rights. For that you received some threats that proved to be empty.

Thank you kindly, sir. I agree that they did nothing illegal, so obviously I have no reason to be to upset. My anger was driven, primarily, by what I read just after it happened. Apparently a lot of people think how they acted was appropriate, which seems strange to me. However, they didn't violate me, just vexed me.

host · 12-28-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

OK I'll bite, explain the relevance to the topic at hand. You have already tied this into Bush and Iraq, I can't WAIT to see what you do with this one.

In the post that I linked to, and in this thread you authored,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108084

....you demonstrated a contempt for "the process", IMO, that is clearly reversed in your posted opinions on this thread.

dksuddeth · 12-28-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

They asked for her. I told them she was not here. They asked to come in. I told them no. They asked if I was harboring a fugitive, and I replied no. He asked me where my sister was. I told him I did not know, and that we don't keep tabs on one another, because we don't. She could be out on a date for all I know. They told me they'd like to check the house for her. Again, I said no thanks. They asked for her cell phone number. I told them that I meant no disrespect, but I don't give out other people's phone numbers.

You were doing good right up until the point that you told them you didn't know where she was. Because you did actually know and told them you did not know, you were technically harboring a fugitive, ONLY if they actually had a warrant. Here is the thing, if there really was a warrant, they would not have needed your permission to search your house for her, provided YOUR address was on the warrant. They either didn't have the warrant or didn't have YOUR address on the warrant. You were totally in the right when refusing them entry and there was nothing they could do about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Then he asked for my ID. I asked him why. He said, so that he could see that I was who I said I was. This was a totally acceptable reason. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be a dick, I just needed a good reason. So, I pulled out my DD Form 2, which I have only because I remain on inactive ready reserve. He said, "So you mean to tell me that you are in the service, and you are still going to harbor a fugitive?"

You do not need to provide ID on demand unless you're getting a ticket for a driving infraction. All you are required to do is give them a name and an address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Anyway, the bitch next to Barney Fife decide to jump in. She said something to the effect of I needed to start disclosing information or else. I said, "Ma'am, I mean no respect to either of you, but I'm quite certain I've broken no laws. If I have, please let me know. I'm just trying to protect my sister as much as possible, without breaking the law, until I know what is going on."

She replied, "Well what's going on is your sister has a dangerous felony warrant out for her arrest."

"For what?"

"I can't tell you that sir."

"Ok."

If they had the warrant to pick her up at your house, they would have had to show you it, by law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Then she said, "You know what is going to happen when we see a black Monte Carlo in this culdesac tonight?"

...

"We're going to get a search warrant, bust down your door, children will be scared, put you all on the floor at gun point, search your property, then take all of you to jail, and your child(a princess, she's 6) to DFS."

This is a clear, plain threat against your private property rights as well as your civil rights. While they MIGHT have been able to get a 'no knock' warrant from a sympathetic judge, most others would not approve such a dangerous tactic for a mere possession charge. You handled this part much better than I would have, kudos to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Secondly, why does everybody seem to think of the government as paternal, like we're supposed to do what the government says just because. NO NO NO! They are in place to do what we say is the best for all of us. You and I pay their paychecks, and last I checked we are not criminals until be convicted as such. Up until then we are just an equal American with the right to all the same respects as a police officer.

I feel your pain. I cannot explain the reasons why most people think they are slaves to the government and when I do, I'm villified by them on this board for not thinking with the herd mentality.

host · 12-28-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

OK I'll bite, explain the relevance to the topic at hand. You have already tied this into Bush and Iraq, I can't WAIT to see what you do with this one.

In the post that I linked to, and in this thread you authored,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108084

....you demonstrated a contempt for "the process", IMO, that is clearly reversed in your posted opinions on this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

....So you tell me whats better.

Scaring some guy a little so he gets his sister to turn herself in, or pretending everything is cool, leaving, getting the warrant and while I don't know the procedure for a 'dangerous felony warrant' my guess is that it could very well be EXACTLY as the cops described.

They were being assholes and scary and doing him a favor at the same time.

I also think pan is correct in his possibilities. I think there is more to this then a 'we will call you if we decide to press charges' going on with the sister....

Ustwo · 12-28-2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

In the post that I linked to, and in this thread you authored,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108084

....you demonstrated a contempt for "the process", IMO, that is clearly reversed in your posted opinions on this thread.

I political witch hunt with wild accusations and the cops looking to arrest someone for narcotics possession. Yes I see your point, how could I have missed the obvious relevance.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

You were doing good right up until the point that you told them you didn't know where she was. Because you did actually know and told them you did not know, you were technically harboring a fugitive, ONLY if they actually had a warrant. Here is the thing, if there really was a warrant, they would not have needed your permission to search your house for her, provided YOUR address was on the warrant. They either didn't have the warrant or didn't have YOUR address on the warrant. You were totally in the right when refusing them entry and there was nothing they could do about it.

You do not need to provide ID on demand unless you're getting a ticket for a driving infraction. All you are required to do is give them a name and an address.

I appreciate your comments, but as, I believe, I explained above, I did not know where she was. It was after her work hours and she was not at home. It's that simple. Why do think I knew where she was?
There was a warrant, but it was an arrest warrant, not a search warrant.
I know about the ID, but like I said before, I am cooperative. It wouldn't have helped not to show them, and I was genuinely not trying not to fuck with them.
Thank you for the kudos.

dksuddeth · 12-28-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

I appreciate your comments, but as, I believe, I explained above, I did not know where she was. It was after her work hours and she was not at home. It's that simple. Why do think I knew where she was?

This statement - "Well, six months came and went. Two months after six months came and went, earlier tonight, two deputies showed up at my door. My sister was still at work." - led me to believe she was still at work and that you knew this. If you explained later that you didn't, my apologies. I didn't see that part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

There was a warrant, but it was an arrest warrant, not a search warrant.

legal entry would depend upon the state you are in most likely. Since they asked and then didn't, it's highly likely that your state is restrictive about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herk

Thank you for the kudos.

welcome, way to hang in there.

host · 12-28-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I political witch hunt with wild accusations and the cops looking to arrest someone for narcotics possession. Yes I see your point, how could I have missed the obvious relevance.

My point was, that in a high profile criminal investigation, and arrest of the VP of the US's Chief of Staff, a case where it was possible to know the charges and the contents of the prosecutor's motions to the court, along with the defense motions, a case of very serious import, where it was possible to know almost as much as there was possible to know, you were completely dismissive towards authority.....towards the prosecution, the charges, the FBI investigation, and to an extent, even to the crime itself, yet in the case described by Herk,

I'll leave it to you and others to decide if your reaction was to give authority the benefit of the doubt, right out of the gate, with so little detail actually disclosed. I don't mean to go OT here, but I cannot understand your reaction here, or in the Libby criminal case.

Ustwo · 12-28-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My point was, that in a high profile criminal investigation, and arrest of the VP of the US's Chief of Staff, a case where it was possible to know the charges and the contents of the prosecutor's motions to the court, along with the defense motions, a case of very serious import, where it was possible to know almost as much as there was possible to know, you were completely dismissive towards authority.....towards the prosecution, the charges, the FBI investigation, and to an extent, even to the crime itself, yet in the case described by Herk,

I'll leave it to you and others to decide if your reaction was to give authority the benefit of the doubt, right out of the gate, with so little detail actually disclosed. I don't mean to go OT here, but I cannot understand your reaction here, or in the Libby criminal case.

Umm host, please, give it a rest, you are comparing apples to igloos.

Herk · 12-28-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This statement - "Well, six months came and went. Two months after six months came and went, earlier tonight, two deputies showed up at my door. My sister was still at work." - led me to believe she was still at work and that you knew this. If you explained later that you didn't, my apologies. I didn't see that part.

Noted. That was an incorrect statement on my part. I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Umm host, please, give it a rest, you are comparing apples to igloos.

That is hilarious, by the way. I believe I see the point he is making; that you enter the discussion with a bias toward accepting what officials say far more easily than their opposition. This may be true - it may not, but the truth is that most of us do that exact thing, even if subconsciously. So, this is the beauty of internet forums, especially TFP for having a great group of members. The fact that I can bring a story to a forum and get all these very well put, logical viewpoints is outstanding.
I truly appreciate your input Ustwo, though in many cases we disagree. You are obviously quite intelligent, and banter is never fun when everybody agrees.

12-27-2007, 07:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
Herk Insane Location: Kansas City, MO	Police - An evening in America I pre-apologize. This will be long. Today two deputy sheriffs came to my door. My sis lives with me in the basement. She pays half the rent. My wife and I pay the other half and the utilities. About eight months ago, she was stopped and found to possess a narcotic. Now this narcotic was prescribed to the dead mother of her landlord at the duplex she resided in prior to moving in with me. The were in the cabinet there. I believe it was morphine, or something that breaks down into morphine. Anyway, as part of the moving process she decided to take this bottle to her coworker which doubled as her landlord. (I know this might sound like bullshit, but that is neither here nor there. For the sake of argument, lets assume she did genuinely have some non-prescribed morphine for recreation.) So, she got arrested. We bailed her out. She was informed that within six months they'd decide whether or not to charge her with a felony drug possession.(I guess they had to think about it) After talking to some lawyers about it, she concluded that they were just being assholes and that six months would probable come and go. Well, six months came and went. Two months after six months came and went, earlier tonight, two deputies showed up at my door. My sister was still at work. They asked for her. I told them she was not here. They asked to come in. I told them no. They asked if I was harboring a fugitive, and I replied no. He asked me where my sister was. I told him I did not know, and that we don't keep tabs on one another, because we don't. She could be out on a date for all I know. They told me they'd like to check the house for her. Again, I said no thanks. They asked for her cell phone number. I told them that I meant no disrespect, but I don't give out other people's phone numbers. Then he asked for my ID. I asked him why. He said, so that he could see that I was who I said I was. This was a totally acceptable reason. Keep in mind, I'm not trying to be a dick, I just needed a good reason. So, I pulled out my DD Form 2, which I have only because I remain on inactive ready reserve. He said, "So you mean to tell me that you are in the service, and you are still going to harbor a fugitive?" I said, "No, I'm not in the military. I was in the military, yes. However, I'm harboring no fugitive." Sidebar - This part pissed me off the most. I didn't join the military for free college. I didn't sign up to wield a weapon, work on nukes, or travel the world. I signed up because, in spite of hating mostly everything about the military, I wanted to protect my children's freedom as my elders had done for me. That is the only reason, I put myself through that bureaucratic, corporate bullshit for six years. Anyway, the bitch next to Barney Fife decide to jump in. She said something to the effect of I needed to start disclosing information or else. I said, "Ma'am, I mean no respect to either of you, but I'm quite certain I've broken no laws. If I have, please let me know. I'm just trying to protect my sister as much as possible, without breaking the law, until I know what is going on." She replied, "Well what's going on is your sister has a dangerous felony warrant out for her arrest." "For what?" "I can't tell you that sir." "Ok." Then she said, "You know what is going to happen when we see a black Monte Carlo in this culdesac tonight?" ... "We're going to get a search warrant, bust down your door, children will be scared, put you all on the floor at gun point, search your property, then take all of you to jail, and your child(a princess, she's 6) to DFS." Ending the story. I asked for his phone number and told him I'd call immediately upon seeing her, and wanted to cooperate as much as reasonable. Finally they left. I'm so sick of people being ok with this. What the hell is going on? I'm just a guy standing in dress pants and a wife beater A-line, having just taken off my shirt and tie from work and saying hello to my daughter, I have no idea what the hell is going on eight months later, and this bitch is telling me she is going to put my wife and I at gun point and take my little princess to DFS. First of all, USE OF FORCE model. I'd assume she'd have heard of it being a cop and all. Secondly, why does everybody seem to think of the government as paternal, like we're supposed to do what the government says just because. NO NO NO! They are in place to do what we say is the best for all of us. You and I pay their paychecks, and last I checked we are not criminals until be convicted as such. Up until then we are just an equal American with the right to all the same respects as a police officer. I cannot divulge any more of my meme here because it is already too lengthy, but feel free to chatter about it. I have a lot more to say on the matter. Thanks for letting me rant to you TFP. I feel much better now. BTW - I called my sister immediately following them leaving. I told her that I didn't want to give her any information other than what they gave me, but I told her what had happened and gave her the telephone number to the Deputy. She drove in anxious tears to our mom's place not knowing what the hell she was about to get arrested for, and upon arriving set up a meeting with a bail bondsman and turned herself in without delay. She is in jail currently but will be bailed out soon. Of course, who knows what will happen in court. I know that I'm not very pleased to see my tax dollars paying to fuck with people who are obviously no threat to nobody and ultimately paying to cloth, house, feed, and buff up all these people that could be out living there life. We're all just trying to get from one end of life to the other as happily as possible, but it would appear that the only way for some to accomplish this is to take that right away from another, deserving or not. __________________ -Blind faith runs into things!- Last edited by Herk; 12-27-2007 at 07:14 PM..

12-27-2007, 07:24 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	The ONLY thing I will say in their defense is that we need to remember how many people truly do act like complete pricks to the police, either by actually committing crimes like harboring, or just obstructing for the hell of it. One of the kids in the family who used to own the house I live in was always in trouble, and one day I walked out the front door as two sheriff's deputies walked up. They started asking me about this guy (who hasn't lived in the house for at least five years, if not longer), and seemed very hesitant to accept my insistence that he no longer lived here. But that is really no excuse at the end of the day. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

12-27-2007, 07:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
Herk Insane Location: Kansas City, MO	Doesn't matter in my opinion, but just so you know I was incredibly polite to them. I pride myself on manners and respect, and it takes a lot to make me break that mold. I was overly respectful in this case, I fear. __________________ -Blind faith runs into things!-

12-27-2007, 08:18 PM	#10 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Good for you for standing up for yourself. Good luck to your sister. Not a fan of the war on drugs myself, so regardless of your sisters motives for having the morphine, its ridiculous that the government has to get involved at all. Generally the police try to be antagonistic on purpose, to throw you off guard, make you admit something, or just to piss you off so they have probable cause to arrest you and search your place. Its all mind games, really. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

12-27-2007, 09:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets play devils advocate here, and who better than the right wing robot devil. The police go to serve a warrant. Brother says shes not there, and won't give they a way to get in touch with her even though thats her known address. He is in fact protecting a fugitive. Its in his rights not to give out her phone number, but that doesn't change it. Brother is annoyed cop would say that he is harboring a fugitive, but its true. Police tell the truth on what happens if they get a search warrant and shes there as the brother would be arrested. I'm not sure what a "dangerous felony warrant" is exactly, but my guess is that when 'dangerous' is in the title it will be at gunpoint when they make the arrest. This is done for the polices protection as well as those being arrested so no one does something stupid. The cops then leave, not entering the premises and the sister is called by the brother and turns herself in. Funny how often I've seen this sort of thing on COPS and its always so different from the officers side. No one likes being bullied, and the cops tried to scare you, but no rights were violated and your sister turned herself in without incident. Sounds like the best possible outcome to me. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-27-2007, 07:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Yep. There are plenty of cops who suck as people and as cops. We put up with it because they have guns, the backing of often amoral unions, many are complete cowards when it comes to actually following the law themselves, and they have the full weight of the legal system behind them, even when they do shit that would put the average person behind bars for a long time.

12-27-2007, 08:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You behaved correctly. It's impressive to know that there are still people who are up on civics and rights. They were trying old tactics to scare you, and you didn't budge. They can't do shit. Look at it this way: they were using dishonest tactics to try and get your sister, and you stopped them in their tracks. Be proud of yourself, and email your local news paper with the story. Call the email: "Local police threaten to invade home of innocent people and take their 6 year old daughter." That'd be if you want to fight fire with fire.

12-27-2007, 09:21 PM	#15 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	A couple things...... not taking the cops side but a couple things stick out at me. 1) how much Morphine did she have when she was busted? If it was felony possession in most states that means enough to distribute (i.e. sell), but if they can't prove she was going to sell it'd just be possession. What degree felony? 2) After 6 months you and your sister didn't hear anything from the courts? What about the bail money, surely you would have cared about that and followed up as to where it was. 3) Your sister could very feasibly been lying to you about a lot of things, especially if "you don't keep track of her." If I paid someone's bail you better be damned sure I'm keeping tabs on their every movement and keeping track of what is going on with the courts. 4) After talking to lawyers, your sister concluded the police were being assholes, what did the lawyers say. Felony drug possession doesn't just go away and those charges aren't pressed just because the cops were "assholes". It sounds to me like your sister missed court, became a "fugitive" and the police were trying to locate her. I have a feeling given the questions I posed above, there is far more to this story from your sister and you probably need to get it from her. It also sounds like the cops were trying to scare tactic you more than anything. Scare you into telling everything and at the very least calling her. Not saying it's right, but from what you gave, it sounds like she jumped bail (hence telling you, you were helping a fugitive), if it was felony drugs and she had had close to the limit to distribute but not quite, they may wonder what goes on in your house. You may want to talk to a lawyer and see what course of action you can take against the police, they did go to far, even if it was only a scare tactic. You best get your sister to be honest with you, because it sounds like she hasn't been. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-27-2007, 09:39 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Anyone with the common sense and knowledge to respond the way Herk did, obviously knowing his rights, would probably also know the consequences for breaking the law. The scare tactics were intended to scare them into giving up their rights. That's a bad thing. Rights are there for a reason: to maintain balance. Just as they had a right to say, "No you can't come in and we don't know where she is.", the cops had a right to go get a warrant. No warrant? That's because there's not enough evidence for one. Bam. Justice.

12-27-2007, 10:12 PM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Calm down there with the laughable thing. My point is simply that the PD is not always on the ball about warrants. It's a valid point. Neeways: Herk... did you get your money back? Did it come from your sister's pocket 8 months ago or was it recently? That should answer your concerns, pan.

12-28-2007, 04:53 AM	#24 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	You know, I can muster up some compassion for the position these cops were in. It's a tough job, being a police officer. You're given a badge and a gun, and told to go out and stop crime based entirely on your wits and your ability to apply force--both physical and psychological. It's no surprise that they sometimes end up employing tactics like this. Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it. You absolutely CAN be charged with harboring/aiding a fugitive without having prior knowledge of the person's fugitive status. Your ignorance may become a mitigating factor in court (or the judge might dismiss outright), but that doesn't necessarily prevent your being hauled in for it.

12-28-2007, 06:06 AM	#28 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Herk, sorry that you had to go through this. Clearly it wasn't fun and you're still upset about it. The world would be a much better place if we could wave a magic wand and make all the assholes disappear. That's not going to happen. That said, I keep coming back to the idea of "words and deeds". They may have said disrespectful things in a disrespectful tone, but there's no law against that. They didn't actually DO anything other than knock on your door. They didn't break any laws or violate your rights. Could this have been handled better? Oh god yeah. There's no question about that. Did they actually do anything WRONG, though? That, I think, is a much tougher question to answer. As for you, I think you acted completely appropriately and within your rights. For that you received some threats that proved to be empty. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo