Anti Federalist
03-13-2013, 04:03 PM
Videos are supposed to be embedded at the link, but they did not come up for me, maybe somebody else can view them...
Surveillance cameras capture Garland police rummaging through homeowner's bag, searching car
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130307-surveillance-cameras-capture-garland-police-rummaging-through-homeowner-s-bag-searching-car.ece
By TANYA EISERER
Staff Writer
Published: 07 March 2013 02:46 PM
The surveillance cameras at a Garland home captured something unexpected: Police officers rummaging through duffle bags, searching a car parked in the front driveway and turning a surveillance camera in his back yard.
In early February, the officers were looking for Jon Locke’s brother, Christopher, a convicted felon with an arrest warrant accusing him of fraud. Jon Locke says his brother doesn’t live with him and he and his wife are upset that police officers took it upon themselves to conduct searches on his property without permission.
“I just want an apology,” said Jon Locke, 32.
Joe Harn, a Garland police spokesman, declined to comment, citing the ongoing internal affairs investigation. But a Garland police internal affairs investigator who met with the family told the Locke’s that he did not have a problem with the actions the officers took and also acknowledged that he thought one of the officers had opened an unlocked back door to look into the house.
George Dix, a University of Texas at Austin law professor and authority on criminal procedure, said the actions of the Garland officers appears to run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment’s protections.
“I continue to think the officers unreasonably searched the vehicle[s] and duffle bags,” Dix said. “The manipulation of and damage to the camera was, in my view, an unreasonable seizure.”
Dix also said he believed that opening the door would also be a search and might be reasonable if there was reason to believe a dangerous person inside, “but nothing in the facts suggest this was the case.”
“Whatever Garland ‘policy’ may be, I think the Fourth Amendment was violated,” Dix said.
According to video surveillance footage, one Garland police officer walks up to the door about 12:15 p.m. on February 5. No one answers and the officer then walks over duffle bags sitting in front of the home. The officers opens up the duffle bags and examines documents he finds inside of them.
Afterward, the officer knocks on the front door again before walking over to the car parked in the driveway. He goes back up the front door and then walks around the side of the house.
Other footage shows the second officer checking out the back of the house. About 12:19 p.m., he walks over to one of Locke’s cameras and turns it to face the wall, breaking the fixed mount.
About 12:22 p.m. the first officer returns to the car and opens up the driver’s side of the car. He checks out the interior of the truck and examines papers he finds in the car before shutting the door.
The officer then examines the contents of the duffle bag, writing down information he finds on paperwork inside one of the bags.
Around that time, Locke’s wife arrived home. The footage then shows her talking to the two officers and even allowing them inside the house to look around.
The Locke’s also provided The Dallas Morning News recordings of their meetings with Garland police internal investigators.
The investigator told the Lockes during that subsequent meeting that he believed the officer opened the door because he thought someone might be inside.
He said he didn’t think the officer entered the house.
“If he opened the door enough just to stick his head in and make a real quick cursory look to make sure somebody wasn’t in here and then shut the door, then he’s perfectly within policy,” the investigator said. “He’s perfectly within what officer safety would tell him to do.”
It is unclear why the officer would need to open the door to look inside when he could see through a window into the home.
“I still find the argument for opening the door at all very weak. Why would officer safety justify a limited entry to check the kitchen but not to check other places in the house where dangerous persons might be?” Dix said.
For their part, the Locke’s remain convinced that the officer went inside.
Dix the said the U.S. Supreme Court Court has rejected the notion that there are minor searches that don’t really count. The court concluded that a search is a search.
“The basis of Fourth Amendment law is that officers are not entitled invade citizens interests and rights on the basis of purely fishing expeditions,” Dix said.
Locke, whose family has lived on that street since 1993, has now decided to sell the house and plan to move outside of Garland.
His brother has since been arrested and been released on bond.
Surveillance cameras capture Garland police rummaging through homeowner's bag, searching car
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130307-surveillance-cameras-capture-garland-police-rummaging-through-homeowner-s-bag-searching-car.ece
By TANYA EISERER
Staff Writer
Published: 07 March 2013 02:46 PM
The surveillance cameras at a Garland home captured something unexpected: Police officers rummaging through duffle bags, searching a car parked in the front driveway and turning a surveillance camera in his back yard.
In early February, the officers were looking for Jon Locke’s brother, Christopher, a convicted felon with an arrest warrant accusing him of fraud. Jon Locke says his brother doesn’t live with him and he and his wife are upset that police officers took it upon themselves to conduct searches on his property without permission.
“I just want an apology,” said Jon Locke, 32.
Joe Harn, a Garland police spokesman, declined to comment, citing the ongoing internal affairs investigation. But a Garland police internal affairs investigator who met with the family told the Locke’s that he did not have a problem with the actions the officers took and also acknowledged that he thought one of the officers had opened an unlocked back door to look into the house.
George Dix, a University of Texas at Austin law professor and authority on criminal procedure, said the actions of the Garland officers appears to run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment’s protections.
“I continue to think the officers unreasonably searched the vehicle[s] and duffle bags,” Dix said. “The manipulation of and damage to the camera was, in my view, an unreasonable seizure.”
Dix also said he believed that opening the door would also be a search and might be reasonable if there was reason to believe a dangerous person inside, “but nothing in the facts suggest this was the case.”
“Whatever Garland ‘policy’ may be, I think the Fourth Amendment was violated,” Dix said.
According to video surveillance footage, one Garland police officer walks up to the door about 12:15 p.m. on February 5. No one answers and the officer then walks over duffle bags sitting in front of the home. The officers opens up the duffle bags and examines documents he finds inside of them.
Afterward, the officer knocks on the front door again before walking over to the car parked in the driveway. He goes back up the front door and then walks around the side of the house.
Other footage shows the second officer checking out the back of the house. About 12:19 p.m., he walks over to one of Locke’s cameras and turns it to face the wall, breaking the fixed mount.
About 12:22 p.m. the first officer returns to the car and opens up the driver’s side of the car. He checks out the interior of the truck and examines papers he finds in the car before shutting the door.
The officer then examines the contents of the duffle bag, writing down information he finds on paperwork inside one of the bags.
Around that time, Locke’s wife arrived home. The footage then shows her talking to the two officers and even allowing them inside the house to look around.
The Locke’s also provided The Dallas Morning News recordings of their meetings with Garland police internal investigators.
The investigator told the Lockes during that subsequent meeting that he believed the officer opened the door because he thought someone might be inside.
He said he didn’t think the officer entered the house.
“If he opened the door enough just to stick his head in and make a real quick cursory look to make sure somebody wasn’t in here and then shut the door, then he’s perfectly within policy,” the investigator said. “He’s perfectly within what officer safety would tell him to do.”
It is unclear why the officer would need to open the door to look inside when he could see through a window into the home.
“I still find the argument for opening the door at all very weak. Why would officer safety justify a limited entry to check the kitchen but not to check other places in the house where dangerous persons might be?” Dix said.
For their part, the Locke’s remain convinced that the officer went inside.
Dix the said the U.S. Supreme Court Court has rejected the notion that there are minor searches that don’t really count. The court concluded that a search is a search.
“The basis of Fourth Amendment law is that officers are not entitled invade citizens interests and rights on the basis of purely fishing expeditions,” Dix said.
Locke, whose family has lived on that street since 1993, has now decided to sell the house and plan to move outside of Garland.
His brother has since been arrested and been released on bond.