Home invasion, armed robbery, and kidnapping
From KCCN.tv, H/T the agitator:
Sheriff's deputies in San Luis Obispo County California respond to a call for conduct that is not criminal, enter the man's home over his objection, search his home including his gun safe, take all of his guns, debate on video (their own car-cams) what story to tell in their reports to justify the invasion, and then arrest the man on bogus charges.
Police are usually provided with summaries of developing Fourth Amendment law - typically just enough to know what to say to get around the Fourth Amendment and for their testimony to stand up in court. The conversation on the video below illustrates why, for some law enforcement, they are given just enough information to be dangerous but not to get by - can we imagine what law enforcement could get away with if they had actual legal training?
Why are these deputies having this conversation on their dash-cams? They don't seem to be too bright - maybe they are used to not providing these to the defense and don't think about it; maybe they just don't think about it. How often does this type of conversation take place off camera?
Happy ending? After a judge dismisses two counts for lack of evidence, the man's public defender advises him to plead guilty to one of the remaining misdemeanors because the prosecutor is threatening to bring additional charges if they take his case to trial. At the time of the video, the police still had not returned the man's guns.
Part I
Part 2
part 3
