El Tejon
Member
So, when does the media ever get it right?
Has to be a lot more to this than initially reported??? I certainly hope so.
Has to be a lot more to this than initially reported??? I certainly hope so.
Posted July 20, 2004
On the web:
www.winnebagocrimestoppers.org
Search for shooting perpetrator becomes frustrating for Oshkosh neighborhood
By Jim Collar and Jeff Bollier
of The Northwestern
The ongoing search for a perpetrator continues to prove frustrating for residents of the otherwise quiet neighborhood near Smith Elementary School. Residents of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street had mixed things to say about the methods police used in searching homes Sunday morning in the aftermath of the shooting.
Terry Wesner said “a couple of shotguns and a rifle†were removed from his home by SWAT Team members after he consented to a search, though officers did not tell him they removed the firearms after they completed their search.
“That’s what makes me so mad,†Wesner said. “They had no reason (to remove the firearms) without a warrant. … I didn’t know they removed anything until my buddy, who’s staying with me, noticed they were missing. I thought you had to have a warrant to take someone’s guns.â€
Oshkosh Police Capt. Jay Puestohl said officers “don’t go into houses without consent or a warrant.†He acknowledged consent to search does “not necessarily†mean officers have consent to remove property.
Puestohl also said nothing illegal was done by removing the firearms and that investigators needed to examine them. He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.
“We’re getting into a lot of legal details if there’s evidence that can be seized. They (the firearms) could be,†Puestohl said. “As far as I know there was nothing inappropriate or illegal done.â€
Martin Gruberg, president of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said some of the stories he’s heard from the neighborhood at least raise questions of whether rights were violated by investigating police.
“Search warrants are specific, and include information on why police are there and what they’re looking for,†Gruberg said. “If you give police consent to search, does that give them the right to come in, rummage around and take things? I’m not sure.â€
Gruberg said neighbors might have felt compelled to offer consent whether or not they were comfortable with a search because they didn’t want to give the appearance that they had something to hide.
Ron Kendall, a resident of the 1700 block of Minnesota Street, said residents of the house that has become the focus of the police investigation refused to consent to a search without a warrant.
He suspects it’s a reason why police are giving the home so much attention.
Detectives, who went to the home with a search warrant Sunday morning, were seen using a metal detector, sweeping through grass and cutting down shrubs and branches in the front yard Monday evening. Puestohl declined to say whether officers pursued the warrant because the residents refused a consent search.
Details of the search, probable cause for the search or any items taken from the home weren’t available on Monday. Court records show that one occupant of the home has no criminal record, while the other occupant’s record is limited to non-violent misdemeanor convictions.
Kendall said officers have shown neighbors disrespect during their investigation.
“I can understand: It’s one of their own, but they’ve been downright rude to us,†Kendall said. “You don’t treat so-called civilians this way.â€
Doris Eichel was another 1700 block resident whose house was searched, but she said officers were very polite.
“They were very courteous,†Eichel said. “I have no complaints.â€
Jim Collar: (920) 426-6676 or [email protected].
I
also saw all the television reports: The man who was visibly shaken after
his guns were "stolen" without any warrant being issued or apparent probable
cause; the elderly woman who woke up to SWAT police doing a search in her
kitchen (she seemed to think they broke in); the man who came home after
working the night/weekend shift to find his home ransacked and his guns
missing...he said on camera, "They didn't even leave a note telling me what
was going on." The military-looking cops cutting down peoples' shrubs
looking for evidence; the other man who said he couldn't believe they'd
"take" his guns after he consented to a search; the look of terror on
neighbors' faces not from the perpetrator of the crime but from those sworn
to serve and protect! That attitude was so prevelent among neighbors that
the newspaper I linked
(historically rabidly anti-gun) was forced to cover at least some (they
still missed the boat by a wide margin) facts about the gun grab.
Nope -- it's for real. Unless we put on the George Orwell glasses and do a
classic "Un-think."
07/22/04 Fourth posting from WI Gun Owners (summary of local TV newscast)
[10:28:08]:
Reporter Mark Leland interviewed Terry Wesner, a neighbor who reported early
on the police entered his home WITHOUT a warrant and seized his guns.
Tonight, Wesner said police returned the guns (ohh, apparently the man
wasn't guilty, oh
well) BUT police "acknowledged a lack of proper procedure [in not obtaining
a warrant]."
Wesner said, according the report, police offered an apology and he wasn't
going to press charges. Wesner did say: "They're [the police] are not going
to come in my home again [without a warrant]." Source: Fox 11, WLUK-11 at 9,
Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Contact information --
Corey Graff, Executive Director
Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc.
P.O. Box 338
Green Bay, WI 54305
http://www.wisconsingunowners.org
He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death
Want to know one of the things that furthers the anti-LEO mindset? LEO actions such as yours here. There's a time to defend the actions of the police and there is a time to say something is over the top. This is an example of the latter and your "piling on" to defend it simply reflects an even worse light on yourself and your profession.
Well, at the end of the day, the cops on the scene had reason to believe that a suspect ran into that area and whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in. It is just that simple. So, no, there will be no successful suits and nobody will get fired or even reprimanded. When you are chasing a suspect, you chase him to wherever he goes and the courts have upheld that principal time and again...
defining exigent circumstances
=whatever we say it means
If you don't like living in a civil society with law enforcement, feel free to move someplace like oh.....the Sudan. You could try practicing what you preach and fending off crime all by yourself without those annoying LEOs coming to help. After all, you would be able to get class 3 and live in the paradise that so many people on here seem to seek where there aren't any of those pesky LEOs to harass you...but then again, most people over there don't live long enough to worry about harassment.
the USSC has reuled
An example of potential nebulous amount of power, the "prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons" (hi-lited below) allows many open doors; for instance, the millions of guns existing in the U.S. suggests a ratio of some calculation respecting the real estate. In the case of six square blocks, a "reasonable person" would expect that one in four(?), one in three(?) buildings/apartments/rooms, would contain a gun. This surely would provide the trigger for "prevent physical harm to the officers or others persons" power. We have recently seen this open door of officer protection extended to vehicles. I am concerned that too much power has been granted (if not just assumed).Can anyone say 18 USC 242? I've added (in red) possible coverage.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, or chemical or biological agents whether medically administered or in medical dosage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exigent circumstances is defined by US v McConney as 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.'.
got that one right on the nose.I am concerned that too much power has been granted (if not just assumed).
Investigators in Oshkosh are asking the public for help to find what's being called the "critical" piece of evidence in the shooting of a police officer.
Police distributed fliers to people who live in the area of Saturday's shooting, asking them to search their yards and other property for the bullet that struck Officer Nate Gallagher.
Gallagher was shot while talking to another officer outside his squad car after responding to a report of underage drinking. The bullet went through his right arm.
Police scoured the area with metal detectors, and we even saw officers searching the ground on their hands and knees Monday, to no avail.
"I think there's a possibility out there that a vehicle drove over it, got embedded in a tire, deposited it a little bit further, somebody walked by, picked up something, was kind of looking at it, then discarded it as they walked away," Sgt. Steve Sagmeister said.
Police say it's also possible the bullet could be lodged in one of the dozens of trees in the area.
If you find the bullet or fragments, or damage from a bullet or ricochet, DO NOT TOUCH IT. Call police.
The police don't have much of a case against the person who's considered the prime suspect in the shooting. Invesigators say they're confident the shot was fired from the home of Mark Jungwirth. Three rifles were confiscated from his home.
But without the bullet, the district attorney says it can't be proven what gun fired it. Then the shooting would probably end up in an "unsolved case" file.
People in the neighborhood say there is a strong willingness to look for that bullet.
"This afternoon I will go around and start looking for the bullet in my yard or if it did any damage to my house, so just to help out the police department," Hicham Medroum said.
The police department's plea for help wasn't helped when a street sweeper moved through the neighborhood Thursday morning. Police quickly ordered the sweeper out of the area.
So . . . the cops believed the suspect - singular - was hiding in every house in the neighborhood? Funny, I thought court rulings have been made such that if chasing a suspect, upon seeing him run into a building, the cops could continue their pursuit. Or something of the sort. Not carte blanche to suspend the 4th Amendment wholesale.. . . whether you like it or not, the USSC has reuled again and again that under circumstances such as those, the exigent nature of the situation allows the officer to go into any building that they believe the suspect may be hiding in.