Woman's bottled water leads to jail and 6 felony charges

[tnhawk]

The agents were probably searching for the Constitution and Ammendments which have been stolen by our current government.

[vontar]

Lets put a twist on it.

 

Still kind of a Terry stop that is out of control.

 

Also, think of it this way, what right would they have approaching any customer that walks out of that store even with beer just because they suspect underage.  Seems they would need a bit more to go on then a suspicion.

 

The plain cloth should never approach someone unless there is an uniformed officer/agent available to lessen untended effects.

 

I have a feeling, the DA will try a face saving tactical move and offer them a lesser sentence or probation to try to keep this out of court and to sweep it under the rug.

 

The women need to claim they feared for their lives when a group of thug rushed their car.  Heck they even called 911.  I bet that recording would be interesting to hear. 

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Just think how wrong this could have gone if one of those ladies had been a ccw holder? In my opinion the shooting of one of these "agents" while tragic, would have been justified. Of course if that had happened then the young ladies would most likely have been murdered rather than just kidnapped and falsely imprisoned under color of law.

[dralarms]

Fox just announced that all charges have been dropped.

[Luke E.]

Fox just announced that all charges have been dropped.

 That's great! I wonder when we'll hear about the lawsuit...

[Reservoir Dog]

Just think how wrong this could have gone if one of those ladies had been a ccw holder? In my opinion the shooting of one of these "agents" while tragic, would have been justified. Of course if that had happened then the young ladies would most likely have been murdered rather than just kidnapped and falsely imprisoned under color of law.

 

You are correct that this could have been much worse if one of the ladies was a CCW holder.  That is why this agency needs to seriously review its tactics regarding operations like this.  But again, you spout off about this color of law stuff.  You seem quite ignorant on what constitutes a violation of civil rights under color of law.  I suggest you read up on it a bit.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

@ resevoir dog, Based on the fact that this discussion has been amicable so far I'm going to assume that you're not meaning to use "ignorant" in a derogatory sense, but I would respectfully suggest that it might not be the best choice of words when one is endeavoring to keep a conversation amicable.

If you are a lawyer of some kind then I will defer to your expertise, but here is the assessment of this case as I UNDERSTAND IT, based on the facts that were available in the sited article.

1. The agents reacted because they suspected a crime was in progress, but there is no real and substantial PC for them to base RS on. All they witnessed was an individual who's age they could only speculate to be under 21 carrying a case of BOTTLED WATER. The fact that they thought it was beer is irrelevant given that they DID NOT have any PC to believe that the individual was underage. LOOKING young and possessing alcohol is NOT a crime. Since PC and RS are not established then a 4th amendment violation has occurred with an unreasonable search and seizure. The subsequent events and actions of both parties came about as a result of this illegal search during the violation of the young women's 4th amendment rights. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

2.Rather than clearly identifying themselves ad law enforcement and giving the subjects an opportunity to comply, the agents engaged the young women in an aggressive manor while wearing plain clothes and acted in such a manor that the women were in fear of grave bodily harm or death, giving them the right to assure their own safety, which they did by fleeing. These actions were carried out in a manor that would cause any REASONABLE PERSON to believe that they should flee, especially since the young women had no reasonable expectation of search and seizure since they were not engaged in criminal activity of any kind. It was reasonable on the part of the women that they were being attacked for purposes of robbery/sexual assault or worse, giving them no other option than to flee. The Agents performed these actions while apparently displaying an indistinguishable badge of some kind......thereby attempting to establish themselves as authority figures while knowingly commuting a 4th amendment violation.

3. They took the women into custody and charged them with a felonies that could have totaled 15 YEARS in prison if the maximum sentence had been handed down. They attempted to criminalize the women for taking reasonable steps to insure their safety against a percieved threat.

That is MY LAYMAN'S OPINION of these events. Again, if you're a lawyer ill defer to your experience, if not....... agree to disagree.

[Reservoir Dog]

@ resevoir dog, Based on the fact that this discussion has been amicable so far I'm going to assume that you're not meaning to use "ignorant" in a derogatory sense, but I would respectfully suggest that it might not be the best choice of words when one is endeavoring to keep a conversation amicable.

 

I did not mean that as a derogatory term.  I meant it exactly in the definition of the word, as in "uneducated" or "lacking knowledge" on the subject.  I am not a lawyer, not do I play one on TGO.  I do have 15 years experience in law enforcement.  I have had 4th Amendment and color of law stuff drilled into my head during legal classes.

 

Your basis for calling this a 1983 violation is that their was no PC for the contact.  That is pure speculation on your part.  The news article says nothing about what reasonable suspicion or PC they had at the time of the incident.  However, let's say that there PC/reasonable suspicion for the contact was weak, and ultimately thrown out of court.  Does that constitute a 1983 violation?  Does that mean that the officers knowingly and willfully fabricated this incident to violate the ladies' civil rights?  I don't see that here.  Not even anywhere close. 

 

Bad PC does not rise to the level of a 1983 violation.  I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

[JayC]

The truth is that we need to start cracking down on felony stupid by our public servants, and this is a perfect example of felony stupid....  I'm not sure you could get a conviction...  but we should have a civilian group that can investigate, charge and bring to trial public servants that commit violations under the color of law.  This group needs it's own budget and the ability to act independently from the DA's office, since the DA and the police are often on the same 'team' in criminal matters.

 

If I were on such a review board, with these facts, I'd push for a kidnapping under the color of law charge, and would push for the maximum penalty under law against these 'agents'.  Would they all get convicted, I'm not sure...  what I do know, these agents would never do something this stupid again...  And if you 'threw' the book at public servants a few times a year, I suspect the number of these felony stupid incidents would drop dramatically.

 

We give a lot of power to our public servants and with that power we need to hold them to a higher standard of the general public.  They need to be on the hook personally for each and ever action they take.  They need to understand that any civil rights violations they perform will result in not only the loss of their job but the loss of their freedom.  I know it's harsh, but the current results just aren't acceptable so something needs to change.

[TMF]

That's great! I wonder when we'll hear about the lawsuit...

They got off lucky. If it was my daughter these clowns would need to go into hiding.

[RichardR]

Is it just me or is it getting harder & harder to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys" these days?

[Guest AmericanWorkMule]

Fox just announced that all charges have been dropped.

Even so, I would agree with what one of the comments stated. Their lives are pretty much tarnished.
 

John Busciglio · Top Commenter · Tampa, Florida

Here is the kicker in all of these types of stories that never gets the attention it deserves.

These three innocent people were booked and photographed. The cops then put out a data feed with that photo and listing all those bogus charges tied to their names.

That data feed gets picked up by countless websites looking to turn a buck by taking advantage of reputation smearing on the internet and post those mugshots and bogus charges.

That bit of false information is now stored on the internet, FOREVER. Now, when these two go to look for work, they get silently rejected by the HR data mining systems. They never know why.

 

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

I did not mean that as a derogatory term. I meant it exactly in the definition of the word, as in "uneducated" or "lacking knowledge" on the subject. I am not a lawyer, not do I play one on TGO. I do have 15 years experience in law enforcement. I have had 4th Amendment and color of law stuff drilled into my head during legal classes.

Bad PC does not rise to the level of a 1983 violation. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

With all due respect, LEOs sticking up for other LEOs no matter what is a big part of the problem when it comes to the current climate. I'm inclined to agree with JayC that someone outside the LEO/DA political loop needs to be reviewing these cases. And props to JayC for coining my new favorite phrase "felony stupid"

To Reservoir Dog, I don't believe you and I are going to see eye to eye on this one, probably best we not attempt to bang our heads together to see who's opinion chips first. Thank you for the job you do, lets agree to disagree.

[Luke E.]

With all due respect, LEOs sticking up for other LEOs no matter what is a big part of the problem when it comes to the current climate. I'm inclined to agree with JayC that someone outside the LEO/DA political loop needs to be reviewing these cases. And props to JayC for coining my new favorite phrase "felony stupid"

To Reservoir Dog, I don't believe you and I are going to see eye to eye on this one, probably best we not attempt to bang our heads together to see who's opinion chips first. Thank you for the job you do, lets agree to disagree.

I too saw the genius in "felony stupid" And with JayC's permission i will use it where needed. 

[Chucktshoes]

With all due respect, LEOs sticking up for other LEOs no matter what is a big part of the problem when it comes to the current climate. I'm inclined to agree with JayC that someone outside the LEO/DA political loop needs to be reviewing these cases. And props to JayC for coining my new favorite phrase "felony stupid"


To Reservoir Dog, I don't believe you and I are going to see eye to eye on this one, probably best we not attempt to bang our heads together to see who's opinion chips first. Thank you for the job you do, lets agree to disagree.

I too saw the genius in "felony stupid" And with JayC's permission i will use it where needed.

Darryl Issa gets credit for that one I believe. Dropped it during the Fast & Furious hearings.

[Reservoir Dog]

With all due respect, LEOs sticking up for other LEOs no matter what is a big part of the problem when it comes to the current climate.

 

I am not "sticking up" for the officers.  If you actually read my posts, you will see that I am very critical of their tactics in this case.  I am just merely pointing out that this in no way rises to 1983 violation and trying to educate people on it.  Nothing more.  You seem to have some preconceived notions about LEOs, and that is also a big part of the problem when it comes to whatever this "current climate" is.

 

Agree to disagree?  100% absolutely yes.

[Luke E.]

Darryl Issa gets credit for that one I believe. Dropped it during the Fast & Furious hearings.

You know I thought that sounded familiar but just dismissed it as me being crazy but I have CSPAN going on my computer most days and caught most of those hearings. So maybe I'm not so crazy after all lol

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

I am not "sticking up" for the officers. If you actually read my posts, you will see that I am very critical of their tactics in this case. I am just merely pointing out that this in no way rises to 1983 violation and trying to educate people on it. Nothing more. You seem to have some preconceived notions about LEOs, and that is also a big part of the problem when it comes to whatever this "current climate" is.

Agree to disagree? 100% absolutely yes.

I admit that on some level I PROBABLY DO have some preconceived notions of LE. Let me preface this by saying that I know THAT THERE ARE GOOD LEOs in the majority, yourself most likely one of them. That being said here is a brief rundown of my personal experience with law enforcement "professionals "

1989: small town NH deputy writes my father an erroneous ticket after hitting the car ahead of him with the radar. After my father went to court and the ticket was dismissed the deputy staked out my fathers route to work daily for several months trying to catch him in something.

2001: An off duty NH deputy working as a bouncer in a bar in Manchester NH becomes belligerent and aggressive with my older brother and tries to goad him into a fight, not realizing that my brother was currently ranked #3 in the state in full contact taekwondo. After having his nose bloodied and his pride hurt, he attempts to have my brother arrested for assault. The case is thrown out following testimony of multiple people who saw the "officer" throw the first punch. The REAL reason for the fight......... the officer was a jealous ex of my brothers wife.

2003: while on a call as a first responder with Dallas Bay volunteer fire Dept in TN I was attending to the injuries of a late fiftyish woman who's LEO husband had punched her and caused her to stumble down the stairs. The responding officers were less concerned with her injuries, and more concerned with making sure that the report reflected the incident as a "tripped and fell" accident. One officer in particular was very aggressive toward the victim and even attempted to get in between myself and my patient while trying to "question" her. Said officer tried very hard to pressure me into falsifying MY report so ad not to reflect the assault that preceded the fall. I did not comply.

2004: A good friend of mine who was working as a Dispatcher in Arizona is repeatedly raped at gunpoint by an officer that she worked with. He then forced her to shower and wash away any forensic evidence, and threatened her not to report the crime. She did report it, he wad never tried due to lack of evidence. She moved across country in fear for her life.

1982-1994 : My LEO father in law systematically abused and brutalized my wife and her mother while feeding his cocaine habit until she divorces him in 1994. After the divorce he stalks and threatens her and drags her through the courts at every opportunity to punish her. No charges are ever filed against him. My mother in law was afraid that no one would believe her due to his position.


So I apologize but YES, I most definitely have some prior notions about LEOs.