All the more reason to question the actions of the one person acting under color of law in this situation. Shouldn't the burden be on him to satisfy those uncertainties before taking action?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Columbus Police detain wrong man. Lawsuit incoming
- Thread starter Loco179
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Correct and thus QI odds of being success may be high here. Where I am we have a big problem with names, DOBs and, especially ghost warrants (warrants where people have paid bond, had warrants recalled, surrendered and their Mag ORs them, etc.).
The officer can ask for, they cannot require, ID. They don't have to comply.
If you have verified ID, name, DOB, SSN should match the warrant. Name, DOB, SSN match is all you need. When you run a person, sound a likes pop up ALL THE TIME. They are usually based on partial information matches. If you have a valid DL, then you know the person you have isn't lying about their ID. However, verbal info may need looked into better if you get a hit that sounds close to who you have.
I don't know exactly what the 911 caller told them. They very well might NOT be anonymous. I do not know the history of that address. This property could have a history of thefts. A Terry Stop takes VERY little to satisfy. No one was handcuffed (other than the mistaken warrant obviously). This is an edited video so I have no idea how long the encounter lasted but it didn't seem like it was very long.
That sounds like a court issue. If the officer makes a good faith effort to match the warrant information then QI should attach. We have issues with Protective Orders being left in the system after a Judge terminates them. I work middle shift so Court offices are closed so we cannot call to determined the validity of a contested PO. We arrest based on what we have in front of us. We have to assume it's valid until told otherwise. Much like your "ghost" warrants. Never heard the term used to describe warrants before.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
More of a Clerk issue, but yes, you are correct.
POs are a nightmare. Many, many an e-mail to have it addressed at the month judges meeting.
I invented the term "ghost warrant" years ago to describe dead warrants which still lingered around. I do not think all of the arrests on ghost warrants are malicious as I am a great believer in Hanlon's Razor. However, and I know I am just some crank in Lafayette, but ghost warrants (and the quagmire that POs now are) undermine faith in the Rule of Law and SHOULD immediately be addressed by the Judicial Branch.
What DID the caller say? Do you know?
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
Speak of the Devil. Spend my lunch hour dealing with a PO. So, instead of chowing down on Panda Express orange chicken and watching the latest Small Arms Solutions video I got to wrestle with the Byzantine PO system.
That all makes sense - and aligns with my common-sense inference that the officer erred in not verifying the easily verifiable ID information to confirm he had the correct person. (And I still don't see this as a major issue. The man was detained/handcuffed/inconvenienced for some period of time - perhaps an hour or two at most?)
I agree. My issue is only that, as soon as the renter showed documentation that proved he was the rightful renter of the unit in question, there was no longer grounds for RAS/Terry stop. It should have ended right there. The officer erred. The other two people - likely in an attempt to be cooperative - also erred by giving the officer their IDs.
Sadly, it is situations such as these that cause law-abiding people to be less likely to be similarly cooperative.
Does it matter? What could the caller possibly have said to change the calculus?
Yes. The officer drove him back to meet his companions.
You seemed to know a lot about the situation not evident from the edited and editorialized video, thought maybe you could clue the rest of us in.
It's unfortunate when exercising your rights is considered being a dick.
I consider being lied to and manipulated, a dick move, but they're allowed to do it to you.
If you do it to a cop, that's an additional charge.
I'll always be courteous to start.
Not all LEOs go on fishing expeditions or lie. To those that don't, my respect.
I still stand by, dont talk to cops. Keep your pie hole shut. Comply but be a mute.
I've been watching that live pd show and there's been some questionable things on there. But specifically some dickhead deputy who I saw one tome straight up break into someone's truck and then claim he found drugs in plain sight for his PC, after he was already in and searching. When they did not consent. No free air sniff or anything. I hope those ****s got a lawyer and had it dropped.
They were clearly druggies but that **** pisses me off.
Last edited:
The point is, we don't actually know what was said. Plenty could have been said. Maybe it was another renter, maybe it was someone who lives in the area, maybe someone knew them to have stolen things in the past, maybe they saw them do something suspicious like cut the lock or hop the fence.
Maybe the caller reported a UFO landing, or a Sasquatch sighting.
None of these things seem likely based on the approach of the officer and lack of backup.
Again even if any or all of those things were true, the caller's report is hearsay and only useful to begin an investigation. Once that suspicion was dispelled, no further investigation was needed.
Since we're dealing with hypotheticals, what if the people present when the officer arrived were not the people the caller saw and reported? What if it had been you, and you didn't have any documentation proving those items were yours? I don't think I'd keep any identifying information in a storage unit...
