A Prince Frederick couple has filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court against the Maryland State Police Prince Frederick Barrack and four troopers, the Calvert County Sheriff’s Office and four deputies, the Calvert County government and the State of Maryland for allegedly violating the couple’s constitutional rights, harassing them and racially discriminating against them last July.

About three minutes later, Harold Hodge said he heard “loud bangs or poundings” on his front door and became fearful, according to the complaint. He opened his front door and “an unknown male,” later identified as Tfc. Merkelson, asked him if he could come outside. Harold Hodge said no and Merkelson asked to come inside. Harold Hodge said he could not come inside without a warrant and, the lawsuit alleges, Merkelson said he did not need a warrant because he was investigating a domestic dispute and put his foot between the door and the doorframe, “across the threshold” of the Hodges’ home. Sheriff’s deputies Bowen and Fox were standing behind Merkelson, the complaint states.

After telling Merkelson he had violated “his 4th Constitutional Amendment right,” Harold Hodge said, Merkelson allegedly refused to remove his foot from between the door and doorframe, the complaint states. Merkelson asked Harold Hodge who else was in the house and Harold Hodge, “out of fear,” told Merkelson his wife and two daughters were upstairs sleeping. He said Merkelson asked to speak to his wife and Harold Hodge told him he would need a warrant.

According to the complaint, Merkelson “became louder and belligerent” and yelled for Harold Hodge to get his wife. Harold Hodge said he “surrender[ed] out of great fear and great shock and humiliation” and walked toward the staircase and called his wife out of bed. When he looked back, Harold Hodge said Merkelson was pushing his front door open and looking around inside the home.


When Chante Hodge came downstairs, Merkelson asked her if she was OK and she said she was, according to the complaint. Merkelson then asked to speak to their 13- and 15-year-old daughters. Harold Hodge said he told Merkelson he could not talk to his daughters because they were minors, but Merkelson, Fox and Bowen allegedly demanded the Hodges wake their daughters.

“Out of fear and great humiliation,” Harold and Chante Hodge called their daughters downstairs, and their daughters told the police they were fine. When the officers left, Harold Hodge said he wrote down Merkelson’s badge number and told him he would be hearing from his lawyer.


SoMdNews.com: Couple files civil suit against MSP, sheriff, government (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120727/NEWS/707279918/1057/couple-files-civil-suit-against-msp-sheriff-government&template=southernMaryland)

Interesting...I'm all for police not violating your rights, but c'mon dude, it's not just the "African-American", and "Latin" communities.

*Let's see how long it takes before JPC gets in here.

Thought this was a story about Clem...he does have a precedent of doing things like this.

The cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

When someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, I immediately suspect they have something to hide.

He said a man identified himself as MSP Cpl. Costella and said he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address. :bs: Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am?

The cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

When someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, I immediately suspect they have something to hide.

:bs: Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am?

It states the officers had the correct names of the people involved in the domestic dispute and knew that the Hodges were not who they were looking for.

Cops go to the wrong address very often, scary often actually. People have been shot, dogs have been shot, houses ransacked, etc. all at the wrong address.

Why would you think they did something wrong? They obviously didn't, and the cops left, and they didn't get charged with anything.

There's nothing wrong with excersing your rights. Just because YOU feel like that, doesn't make it wrong. Police are used to people just doing what they say, but you all should know that you don't [always] have to.

The cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

When someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, I immediately suspect they have something to hide.

:bs: Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am?

When the general public starts thinking that way can a police state be far behind?

Just because they weren't charged with anything doesn't mean the police weren't there responding to a call they received for domestic violence and they are obligated to check the welfare of the occupants of the home. Do you seriously think the cops sat around and said oh a black or latino couple live in this house lets go harrass them? The cops did their job.

When someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, I immediately suspect they have something to hide.

So do I. And that this guy identified a uniformed police officer as an "unknown male" just reinforces that.

If the cops showed up at my door at 12:30 at night, I wouldn't be pleased but I'd let them in so they could see that there was no problem. UNLESS I was beating my spouse or child - then I would tell them to get a warrant.

Just a question:

So what happens when some guy is beating the chit out of his wife or kid, the neighbors call the cops, the cops show up, the guy answers the door and refuses to let them in, and they....go away?

How are cops supposed to know whether there is a problem or not unless they check?

Do you seriously think the cops sat around and said oh a black or latino couple live in this house lets go harrass them? The cops did their job.

No, but do I think it's a possibility that they got the wrong address, and thought they did, so they'd grill this couple to find out? Sure. Don't you think that if this dude was beating his wife, she'd have bruises or hand prints on her, or show some signs of trauma?

So do I. And that this guy identified a uniformed police officer as an "unknown male" just reinforces that.

If the cops showed up at my door at 12:30 at night, I wouldn't be pleased but I'd let them in so they could see that there was no problem. UNLESS I was beating my spouse or child - then I would tell them to get a warrant.

I've seen a few cops that are in plain clothes. Investigators typically aren't in uniform, like the street cops.

I'm sorry, but maybe this guy just didn't want the cops in his house. They have all the ability in the world to get a warrant. If the guy doesn't want them in his house, guess what, they better get a warrant. We have rights for a reason.

I know someone who had her door knocked down, she was dragged out of the shower, thrown nakid down on the floor infront of her kids all because they got the wrong apt number.

No, but do I think it's a possibility that they got the wrong address, and thought they did, so they'd grill this couple to find out? Sure. Don't you think that if this dude was beating his wife, she'd have bruises or hand prints on her, or show some signs of trauma?

I've seen a few cops that are in plain clothes. Investigators typically aren't in uniform, like the street cops.

I'm sorry, but maybe this guy just didn't want the cops in his house. They have all the ability in the world to get a warrant. If the guy doesn't want them in his house, guess what, they better get a warrant. We have rights for a reason.


You are accepting, as fact, the one-sided pleading of a lawyer who's obviously trying to earn his spurs as a class-action litigant? Add on top of that your considered, long-standing experience in how frequently and violently police respond to a wrong address. And we're supposed to give your statements credence?

You are accepting, as fact, the one-sided pleading of a lawyer who's obviously trying to earn his spurs as a class-action litigant? Add on top of that your considered, long-standing experience in how frequently and violently police respond to a wrong address. And we're supposed to give your statements credence?

I don't give 2 sh!ts what you do.

Beauty Queen Sues Sheriff's: Beauty Queen Sues Over Alleged Sheriff's Raid Gone Wrong - ktla.com (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-miss-nevada-sheriffs-lawsuit,0,352315.story)

I don't give 2 sh!ts what you do.

:eyebrow: Someone is testy this morning.

:coffee:

Cops go to the wrong address very often, scary often actually. People have been shot, dogs have been shot, houses ransacked, etc. all at the wrong address.

Why would you think they did something wrong? They obviously didn't, and the cops left, and they didn't get charged with anything.

There's nothing wrong with excersing your rights. Just because YOU feel like that, doesn't make it wrong. Police are used to people just doing what they say, but you all should know that you don't [always] have to.

No, but do I think it's a possibility that they got the wrong address, and thought they did, so they'd grill this couple to find out? Sure. Don't you think that if this dude was beating his wife, she'd have bruises or hand prints on her, or show some signs of trauma?

I've seen a few cops that are in plain clothes. Investigators typically aren't in uniform, like the street cops.

I'm sorry, but maybe this guy just didn't want the cops in his house. They have all the ability in the world to get a warrant. If the guy doesn't want them in his house, guess what, they better get a warrant. We have rights for a reason.Did you read your link and Vrai's post?? They were uniformed. Yes cops do get the wrong address. So what? They HAVE to investigate. Why was this guy so defensive?? You really think they were "damaged" to the tune of over $1M dollars?? All he had to do was show them nothing was wrong and they'd have been on their way but nooooo.....this putz has to scream warrant & constitution!!

You're a known cop hater and will stop at nothing to push your agenda. It's people like you who give cops a bad name.

When the general public starts thinking that way can a police state be far behind?This has NOTHING to do with a police state. As I said above, show them there is nothing wrong and let them go about their merry way.

This is just another bogus lawsuit to bog down our system.

Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door | firstcoastnews.com (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/264499/4/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door)

Did you read your link and Vrai's post?? They were uniformed. Yes cops do get the wrong address. So what? They HAVE to investigate. Why was this guy so defensive?? You really think they were "damaged" to the tune of over $1M dollars?? All he had to do was show them nothing was wrong and they'd have been on their way but nooooo.....this putz has to scream warrant & constitution!!

You're a known cop hater and will stop at nothing to push your agenda. It's people like you who give cops a bad name.

This has NOTHING to do with a police state. As I said above, show them there is nothing wrong and let them go about their merry way.

This is just another bogus lawsuit to bog down our system.

If you know you did nothing wrong, and the police wanted to prove otherwise, let them, but they can do it in a lawful manner.

I'm a cop hater? You should tell that to the 2 cops I had dinner with last night.

:eyebrow: Someone is testy this morning.

:coffee:

Nope, just a case of the Mondays.

Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door | firstcoastnews.com (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/264499/4/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door)
Go ahead, get on a roll posting these stories. Why no excerpt?? Here let me help you Mr. Spin.... :duh:

"When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said..

Deputies shoot, kill man after knocking on wrong door | firstcoastnews.com (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/264499/4/Deputies-shoot-kill-man-after-knocking-on-wrong-door)

To obtain a search warrant at 12:30 am would take several hours, at which time this guy who was reportedly beating his wife could have killed his wife and or children. At that point, other than the perpetrator who would you be blaming?

It has taken you some time to get back to your cop bashing threads. I think that was a result of being proved a liar on one of your previous. Probably because most often the post you provide are creepy one sided post just bashing the police.

You are making a lot of wrong assumptions about this particular post, such as the cops were not in uniform. That is because in your mind it somehow betters your argument. You might get a couple of the other cop haters to buy into your argument here, but for the most part the people in this area have much more common sense than you and realize our police officers are here to help us.

I'm not a police officer but you seem like some want a be cop who was rejected, likely for a myriad of reasons, my assumption would be one at least having something to do with farm animals.

So now you are posting a thread about cops defending themselves against a guy who points a gun at them? Good for the cops. Too bad for the dumb ass who came to the door pointing a gun at cops.

If you know you did nothing wrong, and the police wanted to prove otherwise, let them, but they can do it in a lawful manner.

I'm a cop hater? You should tell that to the 2 cops I had dinner with last night.I'm sure they read these forums and see how you bash them every chance you get too. :sarcasm:

:killingme

You all think I want to be a cop?

The cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

When someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, I immediately suspect they have something to hide.

:bs: Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am?

Wrong house, it's happened to me many times.

Go ahead, get on a roll posting these stories. Why no excerpt?? Here let me help you Mr. Spin.... :duh:

In the early morning hours, deputies knocked on 26-year-old Andrew Lee Scott's door without identifying themselves as law enforcement officers.

Keep reading dude....

Someone's banging on your door in the early morning hours, no one said anything about them being cops, and this guys shows up to his door holding a gun (supposedly pointing the gun), and somehow the police killing an innocent man is justified?

No doubt at all the cops make mistakes. They are human. If someone is truly damaged by a mistake made by the police they should sue. Should they sue for a cop doing his job? Absolutely not!! The cops did exactly what they were supposed to do. Investigate a domestic violence call. I'm sure if you checked you would find more women are killed by domestic violence than innocent people are killed due to police error.

Keep reading dude....

Someone's banging on your door in the early morning hours, no one said anything about them being cops, and this guys shows up to his door holding a gun (supposedly pointing the gun), and somehow the police killing an innocent man is justified?

How is he an innocent man when he is pointing a gun at people? That in itself is an illegal act.

Just a question:

So what happens when some guy is beating the chit out of his wife or kid, the neighbors call the cops, the cops show up, the guy answers the door and refuses to let them in, and they....go away?

How are cops supposed to know whether there is a problem or not unless they check?

Anyone?

Keep reading dude....

Someone's banging on your door in the early morning hours, no one said anything about them being cops, and this guys shows up to his door holding a gun (supposedly pointing the gun), and somehow the police killing an innocent man is justified?

Personally, i would have either looked through the peep hole or called out "who is it" before opening the door with a gun in my hand.

Go ahead, get on a roll posting these stories.

Mission police apologize for raiding wrong home - KCTV 5 (http://www.kctv5.com/story/18148484/mission-police-apologize-for-raiding-wrong-home)

Crime Scene - Video: Seven-year-old girl killed during Detroit police raid (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/around-the-nation/video-seven-year-old-girl-kill.html)

Austin Police Officer Fatally Shoots Dog After Going To Wrong Address « CBS Houston (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/04/18/austin-police-officer-fatally-shoots-dog-after-going-to-wrong-address/)

Police Raid Wrong Apartment, Brutalize Terrified Refugees - informationliberation (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=30214)

Computer Glitch caused NY Police to raid wrong house | Manhattan Style (http://www.manhattanstyle.com/news/computer-glitch-caused-ny-police-to-raid-wrong-house/)

Cops Raid Wrong House Over 50 Times » Popular Fidelity » Unusual Stuff (http://www.popfi.com/2010/03/19/cops-raid-wrong-house-over-50-times/)

Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1)

Minneapolis SWAT Team Raids Wrong House | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html)

Rookie convicted of negligent homicide failed firearms, other police testing (http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1365017-Rookie-convicted-of-negligent-homicide-failed-firearms-other-police-testing/)

Fairfax Police Say Shooting Was Accident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502245.html)

Teen Recovering From Accidental Police Shooting: Gothamist (http://gothamist.com/2009/05/03/teen_recovering_from_accidental_pol.php)

So, all this is going on, and we're just supposed to raise our hands, and say, "Well they're just cops doing their job, no big deal"?

As far as I'm concerned we can remove all gun laws/restrictions and do away with the cops. I can defend myself a lot more expediently than some cop can - typically by the time they get there it's all over. And because of people suing for a hobby, cops' hands are tied anyway.

So, all this is going on, and we're just supposed to raise our hands, and say, "Well they're just cops doing their job, no big deal"?

Chris?

Just a question:

So what happens when some guy is beating the chit out of his wife or kid, the neighbors call the cops, the cops show up, the guy answers the door and refuses to let them in, and they....go away?

How are cops supposed to know whether there is a problem or not unless they check?

Any ideas?

If you know you did nothing wrong, and the police wanted to prove otherwise, let them, but they can do it in a lawful manner. There you go again Mr. Spin. Who said they wanted to prove otherwise? They were called there to investigate a domestic. Soon as he opened the door, the occupant started giving them a hard time. The police broke no laws.

SoMdNews.com: Couple files civil suit against MSP, sheriff, government (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120727/NEWS/707279918/1057/couple-files-civil-suit-against-msp-sheriff-government&template=southernMaryland)

Interesting...I'm all for police not violating your rights, but c'mon dude, it's not just the "African-American", and "Latin" communities.

*Let's see how long it takes before JPC gets in here.

I don't see anything wrong with the actions of these officers. Anyone can sue anyone for anyreason. Where the lawsuit goes is another question. I suspect this will be dismissed pretty early.

Chris?



Any ideas?

Well come on....if the cops did as Chris wanted, it would give him more ammunition to bash them. Then would be lazy good for nothing police not helping people.

How is he an innocent man when he is pointing a gun at people? That in itself is an illegal act.

Personally, i would have either looked through the peep hole or called out "who is it" before opening the door with a gun in my hand.

He was in his home. Someone knocked on his door, at night. You look out of a peep hole, you'll probably see a few dark figures, and that's it. I'm not saying he was right, and I wouldn't have even opened the door, but I was using it as an example of what COULD happen when police get the wrong address.

Anyone?

They do exactly what they did here. Make contact with the guy, do the same with his wife and kids. Determine then if there really is a threat. If there is, get a warrant. Stay at his front step until you get that warrant.

Now, what if the cops come in his home without their permission? They find the woman beat to hell, and arrest the guy. It goes to court, and gets dismissed because the cops were in his house, and gained their evidence illegally.

Which would you want?

So, all this is going on, and we're just supposed to raise our hands, and say, "Well they're just cops doing their job, no big deal"?

I wonder what the comparison is of mistaken vs. successful raids. Can you provide those stats, please?

He was in his home. Someone knocked on his door, at night. You look out of a peep hole, you'll probably see a few dark figures, and that's it. I'm not saying he was right, and I wouldn't have even opened the door, but I was using it as an example of what COULD happen when police get the wrong address.



They do exactly what they did here. Make contact with the guy, do the same with his wife and kids. Determine then if there really is a threat. If there is, get a warrant. Stay at his front step until you get that warrant.

Now, what if the cops come in his home without their permission? They find the woman beat to hell, and arrest the guy. It goes to court, and gets dismissed because the cops were in his house, and gained their evidence illegally.

Which would you want?

And how do you determine if he is a threat unless you can see the other people in the residence are ok? You have no idea what happens in the criminal justice system. If the cops went into the house and found the woman beat to hell, they would not lose anything. The exigency in the case allows them to properly investigate.

I don't see anything wrong with the actions of these officers. Anyone can sue anyone for anyreason. Where the lawsuit goes is another question. I suspect this will be dismissed pretty early.

Tell that to Baltimore. They've spent $10.4 million defending city officers in past three years.

I'm sure they're all made up cases.

Chris?



Any ideas?

then the police go get a warrant like the constitution says they should. Its really pretty simple, they could have kept officers stationed there while they waited and then they could have fully investigated.

Determine then if there really is a threat.

How are they supposed to determine if there's a threat if the guy won't let them see the wife or kids and won't let them in the house?

Answer that and we'll move on to Step 2.

then the police go get a warrant like the constitution says they should.

That's the George Bush method: tell them you're coming and give them plenty of time to hide any evidence.

Did you read your link and Vrai's post?? They were uniformed. Yes cops do get the wrong address. So what? They HAVE to investigate. Why was this guy so defensive?? You really think they were "damaged" to the tune of over $1M dollars?? All he had to do was show them nothing was wrong and they'd have been on their way but nooooo.....this putz has to scream warrant & constitution!!

You're a known cop hater and will stop at nothing to push your agenda. It's people like you who give cops a bad name.

This has NOTHING to do with a police state. As I said above, show them there is nothing wrong and let them go about their merry way.

This is just another bogus lawsuit to bog down our system.
Why do you think the threw the fourth amendment in there, just as filler material? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Once you start questioning why someone would want to enforce their constitutional rights you can question any of them.

If you're not guilty why would you plead the fifth.
If you're not planning on committing a crime, why would you want a gun?

you're willing to give up your right a little at a time for a sense of security, but a police state is what provides the most security.

That's the George Bush method: tell them you're coming and give them plenty of time to hide any evidence.

no, thats the consitutional method :shrug:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

But what evidence was he going to hide? If this was really a domestic dispute there wasn't anything he could have hidden.

Wrong house, it's happened to me many times.So? Your point? How did you handle it? Did you make a stand and scream warrant/4th amend. or did you politely answer their questions and let them go find the correct location?

Keep reading dude....

Someone's banging on your door in the early morning hours, no one said anything about them being cops, and this guys shows up to his door holding a gun (supposedly pointing the gun), and somehow the police killing an innocent man is justified?Why would someone open the door pointing a gun??? I opened my door at 5:30am one Sunday morning with my gun clutched behind my back. I peeked out to see who it was first. See, I am smart and I would not have been shot! :diva: My neighbor appreciates my not shooting her too.

How is he an innocent man when he is pointing a gun at people? That in itself is an illegal act.Thank you!

Personally, i would have either looked through the peep hole or called out "who is it" before opening the door with a gun in my hand.See, you're smart too!! You won't be shot by police when answering your door. :yahoo:

Mission police apologize for raiding wrong home - KCTV 5 (http://www.kctv5.com/story/18148484/mission-police-apologize-for-raiding-wrong-home)

I hate cops!!

So, all this is going on, and we're just supposed to raise our hands, and say, "Well they're just cops doing their job, no big deal"?All this.... :killingme 312,000,000 people in the country and you have this... You go boy!!! :killingme

Tell that to Baltimore. They've spent $10.4 million defending city officers in past three years.

I'm sure they're all made up cases.

While I am sure there are some cases with merit in Baltimore, the problem with that city, (and there are many) is that the corporate counsel is too lazy to take lawsuits without merit to trial, therefore they settle. Probably because the jury pool would be more likely to give money to criminals. Do you really want to compare Baltimore residents to Calvert County? Why not look at that suit or other local law suits to see how many are settled without government paying money to those that are?

The reason you won't is because it doesnt' happen. The jury pool here, doesn't think like you and the rest of the people in Baltimore. They trust their police and use common sense.

Back to the original story, I seriously hope none of you ever have to excerise ANY of your rights. Apparently it's cool, and grand to play along with the 2ns Ammendment, eyt it's the same people wanting to villify this man for doing the same with his 4th Ammendment rights.

It's not about whether YOu would do this, or that. It's a matter of WE, THE PEOPLE having these rights to protect us from an overzealous government. You may not want to protect, and/or exercise those rights, but many people fought and died to give us, and let us keep those rights.

I know I don't have drugs on me, but if I get pulled over and they ask me to search my car, guess what, you better have probable cause. Some of you may say "oh, you must have something to hide" or the typical "why do you hate cops" rhetoric, but I'll continue to exercise my rights, ALL of them.

Back to the original story, I seriously hope none of you ever have to excerise ANY of your rights. Apparently it's cool, and grand to play along with the 2ns Ammendment, eyt it's the same people wanting to villify this man for doing the same with his 4th Ammendment rights.

It's not about whether YOu would do this, or that. It's a matter of WE, THE PEOPLE having these rights to protect us from an overzealous government. You may not want to protect, and/or exercise those rights, but many people fought and died to give us, and let us keep those rights.

I know I don't have drugs on me, but if I get pulled over and they ask me to search my car, guess what, you better have probable cause. Some of you may say "oh, you must have something to hide" or the typical "why do you hate cops" rhetoric, but I'll continue to exercise my rights, ALL of them.

Do you even know what the 4th amendment says? It protects us against "unreasonable" searches and siezures. Nobody here believes they were unreasonable in their actions. Exercise your rights. You should. Please do not answer your door when the police are knocking by pointing a gun at them. I don't want to see your family suffer at your demise.

The precedents are pretty solid and long standing..and that's all that matters at the end of the day. Dozens of legal sites included verbiage like this:

An example of a common warrantless search is one that results from 911 calls that alleging domestic violence. If the police arrive and are not granted entry, there is a high likelihood that the officers will force entry to check on the occupant’s health and welfare.

He was in his home. Someone knocked on his door, at night. You look out of a peep hole, you'll probably see a few dark figures, and that's it. I'm not saying he was right, and I wouldn't have even opened the door, but I was using it as an example of what COULD happen when police get the wrong address.

They do exactly what they did here. Make contact with the guy, do the same with his wife and kids. Determine then if there really is a threat. If there is, get a warrant. Stay at his front step until you get that warrant.

Now, what if the cops come in his home without their permission? They find the woman beat to hell, and arrest the guy. It goes to court, and gets dismissed because the cops were in his house, and gained their evidence illegally.

Which would you want?Oh so now you're a Philadelphia lawyer? How do they make contact with the wife and kids hmmmm? :killingme I'll bet you two C notes that it would NOT be dismissed.

then the police go get a warrant like the constitution says they should. Its really pretty simple, they could have kept officers stationed there while they waited and then they could have fully investigated.You're still an idiot whose posts have no credence. Lets hope your daughter or sister aren't being beat up by their spouse.

Why do you think the threw the fourth amendment in there, just as filler material?
Once you start questioning why someone would want to enforce their constitutional rights you can question any of them.

If you're not guilty why would you plead the fifth.
If you're not planning on committing a crime, why would you want a gun?

you're willing to give up your right a little at a time for a sense of security, but a police state is what provides the most security.Ok lets break it down....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, <----it is not "unreasonable" if the police were called there for a domestic. shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I repeat, they were called to investigate domestic abuse. I would not have left either until I knew the wife & kids were ok whether or not it was the correct address.

If the police came to my house and ask to be let in, I would be embarrassed that they would see the dust bunnies under my sofa.

While I am sure there are some cases with merit in Baltimore, the problem with that city, (and there are many) is that the corporate counsel is too lazy to take lawsuits without merit to trial, therefore they settle. Probably because the jury pool would be more likely to give money to criminals. Do you really want to compare Baltimore residents to Calvert County? Why not look at that suit or other local law suits to see how many are settled without government paying money to those that are?

The reason you won't is because it doesnt' happen. The jury pool here, doesn't think like you and the rest of the people in Baltimore. They trust their police and use common sense.

The number I posted was the amount of taxpayer money it took for them to fight the cases. Not everyone wins, but the ones that do, win big. Why? Because obviously someone, along the lines did something wrong. If the judge doesn't agree with the jury, they'll know.

Do you think we have police to prevent crime?

The precedents are pretty solid and long standing..and that's all that matters at the end of the day. Dozens of legal sites included verbiage like this:


except they were not responding to a call at his address......
He said a man identified himself as MSP Cpl. Costella and said he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address. Harold Hodge told Costella the address was not his and Costella then allegedly asked if he heard any yelling or screaming. Harold Hodge said he did not and closed the door.

Oh so now you're a Philadelphia lawyer? How do they make contact with the wife and kids hmmmm? :killingme I'll bet you two C notes that it would NOT be dismissed.

You're still an idiot whose posts have no credence. Lets hope your daughter or sister aren't being beat up by their spouse.

Ok lets break it down....
I repeat, they were called to investigate domestic abuse. I would not have left either until I knew the wife & kids were ok whether or not it was the correct address.

and you are the idiot who aparently cant read :bigwhoop:

the police were called to a different address.

I love how the alleged 2nd ammendment crowd is quick to throw away all the other amendments. Me personally, i want my guns AND the other rights afforded me by the constitution.

except they were not responding to a call at his address......

That part..is definitely going to be a factor in the claimants favor in this case.

I was commenting only on the general debate about the need for a warrant..or not.


Situations like this are being created on purpose lately too..a practice known as "SWATting", where someone makes a bogus 911 call claiming to have just killed their family or are getting ready to...and the police show up at the target/victim's residence all hopped up on adrenalin with hair triggers. Seems to me that more training is required to create a more creatively critical approach to on-scene situational awarenes.

Do you even know what the 4th amendment says? It protects us against "unreasonable" searches and siezures. Nobody here believes they were unreasonable in their actions. Exercise your rights. You should. Please do not answer your door when the police are knocking by pointing a gun at them. I don't want to see your family suffer at your demise.

I wouldn't answer the door pointing it, but who's to say that police report is 100%?

What if the guy opened the door with it at his side, and one cop shouts "GUN", then there's a hail of bullet fire.

The guy can't testify, so why not say he pointed it at them? None the wiser....

Oh so now you're a Philadelphia lawyer? How do they make contact with the wife and kids hmmmm? :killingme I'll bet you two C notes that it would NOT be dismissed.

You're still an idiot whose posts have no credence. Lets hope your daughter or sister aren't being beat up by their spouse.

Ok lets break it down....
I repeat, they were called to investigate domestic abuse. I would not have left either until I knew the wife & kids were ok whether or not it was the correct address.

Guess what genius, you can't just go into someone's home, collect evidence, then go to court and expect it to hold. Plain and simple.

I'd hope if I even had a daughter or sister that they'd be smart enough to get out of that abusive relationship before anything like that would happen.

So, why not wait, and get a warrant, or maybe, just maybe, make sure you're at the right friggin' house.

I'm sorry, but abusive relationship, sick kids, etc. are no reason for cops to circumvent the constitution, and our individual rights as Americans. They train, study, etc for these things and have procedures in place to deal with this to prevent lawsuits. Unfortunately, when dealing with the police force, mearly calling and asking them to "Try harder next time" just doesn't cut it. Unfortunately lawsuits happen, and 9 times out of 10, from those lawsuits comes new regulations, and trainign requirements. Personally, I don't see that as an issue.

I wouldn't answer the door pointing it, but who's to say that police report is 100%?

What if the guy opened the door with it at his side, and one cop shouts "GUN", then there's a hail of bullet fire.

The guy can't testify, so why not say he pointed it at them? None the wiser....



Guess what genius, you can't just go into someone's home, collect evidence, then go to court and expect it to hold. Plain and simple.

I'd hope if I even had a daughter or sister that they'd be smart enough to get out of that abusive relationship before anything like that would happen.

So, why not wait, and get a warrant, or maybe, just maybe, make sure you're at the right friggin' house.

Are you going to answer my question?

I'd hope if I even had a daughter or sister that they'd be smart enough to get out of that abusive relationship before anything like that would happen..

Considering that responding to domestic violence and abuse calls is what dominates just about every police officer's typical shift...I'd say your hope is well beyond a fond one, statistically speaking at least.:razz:

Considering that responding to domestic violence and abuse calls is what dominates just about every police officer's typical shift...I'd say your hope is well beyond a fond one, statistically speaking at least.:razz:

Oh, no doubt. I do have...well, used to have...a really close family friend that's in an abusive relationship. Not physically (well, once), but more mentally.

I've been to her house at 11pm on a Thursday ngiht packing her entire house up, and packing a storage locker so she could get away, only to have her come back to him, and now they are engaged.

She's the one who made those choice, and after about the 10th time, I can't sit back and watch this go on anymore. Unfortunately, her and I had to cut all ties.

It's a shame because I've known her for over 20 years, we grew up together, I'm the godfather to her kid, etc.

Are you going to answer my question?

The one about dust bunnies?

Oh, that was a comment, not a question....nebermind.

Are you going to answer my question?

If the police came to my house and ask to be let in, I would be embarrassed that they would see the dust bunnies under my sofa.

You should dust.

Did that answer it?

I wouldn't answer the door pointing it, but who's to say that police report is 100%?

What if the guy opened the door with it at his side, and one cop shouts "GUN", then there's a hail of bullet fire. Boy you're full of "what if's" aren't you?

The guy can't testify, so why not say he pointed it at them? None the wiser.... Of course you won't believe a thing the police say.


Guess what genius, you can't just go into someone's home, collect evidence, then go to court and expect it to hold. Plain and simple. Guess what genius, read post 48.

I'd hope if I even had a daughter or sister that they'd be smart enough to get out of that abusive relationship before anything like that would happen.

So, why not wait, and get a warrant, or maybe, just maybe, make sure you're at the right friggin' house.

I'm sorry, but abusive relationship, sick kids, etc. are no reason for cops to circumvent the constitution, and our individual rights as Americans. They train, study, etc for these things and have procedures in place to deal with this to prevent lawsuits. Unfortunately, when dealing with the police force, mearly calling and asking them to "Try harder next time" just doesn't cut it. Unfortunately lawsuits happen, and 9 times out of 10, from those lawsuits comes new regulations, and trainign requirements. Personally, I don't see that as an issue.Just trying to keep the black man down the po po are...

and you are the idiot who aparently cant read :bigwhoop:

the police were called to a different address.

I love how the alleged 2nd ammendment crowd is quick to throw away all the other amendments. Me personally, i want my guns AND the other rights afforded me by the constitution.
I read that. They were conducting an investigation. Do you know what the word "reasonable" means??

Just trying to keep the black man down the po po are...

Yea, cause the cops never do wrong, huh?

They would never write their own report to make it seem as if the "criminal" did everything wrong would they?

Do I need to bring up the college park thing again?

How about this, how about you stop cherry picking my posts, and try to get the big picture.

I bet you like to shoot guns, and want to right to protect yourself right? I'm suire you're a supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, right?

Why do you hate when others do the same to the ammendments they feel is important?

Stop making this about me, and what you think is a "hatred for police", and try focusing on the original story, and the point he's trying to make. The whole black man thing is tiresome, but does he have the right to make sure the police that are here to protect and serve he and his family are doing their job right? Absolutely.

Yea, cause the cops never do wrong, huh?

They would never write their own report to make it seem as if the "criminal" did everything wrong would they?

Do I need to bring up the college park thing again?

How about this, how about you stop cherry picking my posts, and try to get the big picture.

I bet you like to shoot guns, and want to right to protect yourself right? I'm suire you're a supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, right?

Why do you hate when others do the same to the ammendments they feel is important?

Stop making this about me, and what you think is a "hatred for police", and try focusing on the original story, and the point he's trying to make. The whole black man thing is tiresome, but does he have the right to make sure the police that are here to protect and serve he and his family are doing their job right? Absolutely. This isn't about you. You aren't that important!

How about you stop cherry picking police stories and bashing the police? How about you stop assuming that they cover up everything?
How about you learn how to spell amendment?

Do you know what the word "reasonable" means??

The question of what is "unreasonable" was first dealt with at the federal level in the 1914 case of Weeks v. United States and nearly fifty years later at the state level in the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio. In Weeks, the Court argued that evidence gathered in an illegal manner, without probable cause or without a search warrant, should be excluded from court proceedings. In part, this exclusionary rule was adopted to prevent abuses by the police and other government officials. The logic followed that if police understand that evidence seized in a manner that violates any of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from court proceedings, they will less likely conduct searches without warrants or without probable cause. The Weeks decision only affected federal courts, and two-thirds of the state courts rejected the exclusionary rule, claiming the rule placed unnecessary burdens on the police and the rule favored the guilty.
In the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the rights of the accused by applying the exclusionary rule to all criminal trials, both federal and state. Ms. Mapp had been sentenced to a year in jail for possessing pornographic materials seized in a search of her apartment. The police entered her apartment without a valid warrant, searching for a fugitive from justice and illegal gambling slips. The state attorneys argued that no matter how incorrectly the police behaved, their actions did not change the facts in the case. Ms. Mapp was guilty of possessing pornographic materials, therefore, her conviction should stand. The State also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court should allow local government to handle police excesses in their own way.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the state of Ohio and would not tolerate such an abuse of power exhibited by the Cleveland police. The Court's decision ensured that all citizens were afforded Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by all levels of governmental officials.

:yay:

The one about dust bunnies?

Oh, that was a comment, not a question....nebermind.

You should dust.

Did that answer it?

No, that was a statement. The question was prior to that. Regarding statistics.

This isn't about you. You aren't that important!

How about you stop cherry picking police stories and bashing the police? How about you stop assuming that they cover up everything?
How about you learn how to spell amendment?

If I'm just not that important, you sure like to analyze what I have to say, and sure don't mind posting in this thread.

This story happened in southern MD, and I posted in the southern Md section. No cherry picking involved. Why don't you start posting feel good stories?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_REkgXByDyuU/S7OQjASZIsI/AAAAAAAAGyg/efjoN0B5xbY/s1600/grammar-nazi2.jpg

If you're not planning on committing a crime, why would you want a gun?

you're willing to give up your right a little at a time for a sense of security, but a police state is what provides the most security.

Smoking crack for breakfast are we? :jameo:

I know I don't have drugs on me, but if I get pulled over and they ask me to search my car, guess what, you better have probable cause. Some of you may say "oh, you must have something to hide" or the typical "why do you hate cops" rhetoric, but I'll continue to exercise my rights, ALL of them.

What are the odds that if you aren't suspicious and/or doing anyhting wrong of them asking to search the vehicle? And unless it's a full cavity search, wouldn't you just as soon let them look so you can continue on your way?

This isn't about you. You aren't that important!

How about you stop cherry picking police stories and bashing the police? How about you stop assuming that they cover up everything?
How about you learn how to spell amendment?
You can tell when someone has that "uh oh moment" when they can tell their argument has fallen apart, they start critiquing the oppositions spelling. I'm going to guess it was when you realized they weren't at the house that the call was about.

:yay::whoosh: Post 48 (again)

Smoking crack for breakfast are we? :jameo:
Great argument, you're a "master debater" aren't you.

If I'm just not that important, you sure like to analyze what I have to say, and sure don't mind posting in this thread.

This story happened in southern MD, and I posted in the southern Md section. No cherry picking involved. Why don't you start posting feel good stories?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_REkgXByDyuU/S7OQjASZIsI/AAAAAAAAGyg/efjoN0B5xbY/s1600/grammar-nazi2.jpgBecause I'm not obcessed with the po po like you are. :coffee:

:yay:

I don't know the facts. But I do know the following apply

1) Why were they called? Did they reasonably believe that the crime of domestic violence/assault was taking place.

IF yes then they need to investigate.

IF NO then they should not be entering the residence.

IF they have to investigate, how far in to the house do they need to go to find out. THERE are so many factors that would need to be public for some one to draw a conclusion about it being a violation or not.

The victim's may have there day in court, it may be justified, but the totality of circumstances will then be made known to them. With all the facts present, would a reasonable officer done the same or similar thing?

Because I'm not obcessed with the po po like you are. :coffee:
Watch the spelling.

No, that was a statement. The question was prior to that. Regarding statistics.

Oops, I had something typed, and I guess I forgot to hit submit.

I wonder what the comparison is of mistaken vs. successful raids. Can you provide those stats, please?

I wonder that also. Maybe you can do some of your own research and get back to us?

What I'm willing to bet, is that these unsuccessful, or "bad" raids are becoming more and more common. These bad raids are the ones that need to be stopped, and I think, no matter what side of the argument you're on, we agree on that.

I'm all for the "good" raids. But lets be honest, what are most of these raids for? Drugs, and that's an entire thread in itself.

I don't know the facts. But I do know the following apply

1) Why were they called? Did they reasonably believe that the crime of domestic violence/assault was taking place.

IF yes then they need to investigate.

IF NO then they should not be entering the residence.

IF they have to investigate, how far in to the house do they need to go to find out. THERE are so many factors that would need to be public for some one to draw a conclusion about it being a violation or not.

The victim's may have there day in court, it may be justified, but the totality of circumstances will then be made known to them. With all the facts present, would a reasonable officer done the same or similar thing?

How reasonable is it to believe police can go to the right house

:whoosh: Post 48 (again)

I just gave you two high profile cases in the "reasonable" argument, and you say "whoosh".

Awesome, come back to me when you do some of your own research, then we'll talk.

Because I'm not obcessed with the po po like you are. :coffee:

No, just me.

Admit it, you are "obcessed" with me.

:huggy:

You can tell when someone has that "uh oh moment" when they can tell their argument has fallen apart, they start critiquing the oppositions spelling. I'm going to guess it was when you realized they weren't at the house that the call was about.Not at all. I am one of the forum spelling nazi's. You've been around long enough to know that.

I read that. They were conducting an investigation. The guy started screaming warrant and 4th closed the door on them. They then had reasonable suspicion.

I just gave you two high profile cases in the "reasonable" argument, and you say "whoosh".

Awesome, come back to me when you do some of your own research, then we'll talk.:whoosh: Again.

Neither had to do with domestic violence.

Oops, I had something typed, and I guess I forgot to hit submit.

I wonder that also. Maybe you can do some of your own research and get back to us?

What I'm willing to bet, is that these unsuccessful, or "bad" raids are becoming more and more common. These bad raids are the ones that need to be stopped, and I think, no matter what side of the argument you're on, we agree on that.

I'm all for the "good" raids. But lets be honest, what are most of these raids for? Drugs, and that's an entire thread in itself.

No, I asked you to provide the information. You have such a knack at finding all the bad reports, I thought perhaps you would find it easy to provide the positive ones as well. Maybe not.

Not at all. I am one of the forum spelling nazi's. You've been around long enough to know that.

I read that. They were conducting an investigation. The guy started screaming warrant and 4th closed the door on them. They then had reasonable suspicion.

And what came out of it?

Seems to me like the guy had nothing to hide considering he went and woke his wife and kids. Seems to me like he did everything the cops asked him to.

Watch the spelling.:high5:

I'm not changing it either since it so rarely occurs! :lmao:

:whoosh: Again.

Neither had to do with domestic violence.

Ah, sorry, I was under the assumption that "reasonable" meant the same things everywhere.....

How reasonable is it to believe police can go to the right house

It's called GOOD FAITH. That is what they were acting on. Unless you can prove otherwise. Leads me to another question why you published this. Your original post you indicated that they guy was playing the race card. I like this quote better

“The reason why I went forward with the lawsuit is because police in Calvert County and all through the nation have been violating the African-American and Hispanic people’s rights” by entering their homes and arresting them without probable cause, he said.

He said there is “no excuse” for violating people’s rights.

“They need to stop targeting the African-American people,” he said. “In 2012, we still have this problem in America. … We’re going to be calling on [President Barack Obama] to address this issue … that police are terrorizing African-American people and Hispanic people

Another divided Amerikan. Thanks BHO.

This is an interesting thread to me. Not because of this particular case, but for another reason entirely.

There are alot of righties in this thread who all over this forum call themselves patriots because they want to "get back to the constitution". But in this situation, they feel its ok not to follow it.

How can that be ? The constitution is the constitution. It is to be upheld on every level, from congress to citizen, from the president to the police. Its hypocritical otherwise.

And what came out of it?

Seems to me like the guy had nothing to hide considering he went and woke his wife and kids. Seems to me like he did everything the cops asked him to.As well he should have. And they didn't hurt him in the least. He's just another black man looking for a city payday.

Ah, sorry, I was under the assumption that "reasonable" meant the same things everywhere.....:whoosh:

Really Chris??? :killingme

No, I asked you to provide the information. You have such a knack at finding all the bad reports, I thought perhaps you would find it easy to provide the positive ones as well. Maybe not.That's like asking me to find a good muslim story! :killingme

Not at all. I am one of the forum spelling nazi's. You've been around long enough to know that.

I read that. They were conducting an investigation. The guy started screaming warrant and 4th closed the door on them. They then had reasonable suspicion.
A guy robs a store and runs into an apartment building, does the ensuing investigation give the police reasonable suspicion to search every apartment?
A guy robs a store and runs through a neighborhood, does the ensuing investigation give the police reasonable suspicion to search every house in the neighborhood?
I can keep going and expanding but you get the drift, where is your cutoff on reasonable and unreasonable.

A guy robs a store and runs into an apartment building, does the ensuing investigation give the police reasonable suspicion to search every apartment?
A guy robs a store and runs through a neighborhood, does the ensuing investigation give the police reasonable suspicion to search every house in the neighborhood?
I can keep going and expanding but you get the drift, where is your cutoff on reasonable and unreasonable.Good points!!

I just read it again and if it is true as written, Mr. Hodge may have a case. I think there is more to this story so we shall see.

No, I asked you to provide the information. You have such a knack at finding all the bad reports, I thought perhaps you would find it easy to provide the positive ones as well. Maybe not.

Unfortunately, states do not regularly provide such information to the public.

What I do have is a map of botched police raids.

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/)

Also, here's 2010's Police Misconduct Statistical Report

2010 NPMSRP Police Misconduct Statistical Report -Draft- | PoliceMisconduct.net (http://www.policemisconduct.net/2010-npmsrp-police-misconduct-statistical-report/)

I'll be honest though, that map of botched raids is pretty scary.

That's like asking me to find a good muslim story! :killingme

You need to broaden your social circle or at least reading material. Most of the muslims I know are in the medical field and I imagine their patients are glad for the good they do.

You need to broaden your social circle or at least reading material. Most of the muslims I know are in the medical field and I imagine their patients are glad for the good they do.My social circle is very broad and I will bet what you think are muslims are actually Hindu's from India. :yay:

Wirelessly posted

not content being wrong in this thread only once....... :yay:

Bwjajajajajaja.

Nope. I know they are in fact Muslim.

I'm not going to get into it any further with you because I know on these topics neither of us will convince the other. But I always think its sad to not have one single positive thought, experience, whatever, etc in reguards to a group (religion/race/etc) of people. I'm pretty sure I have in the past shared my experiences with you of going to grade school with muslim children and how I had nothing but pleasant experiences with them and their families. So we've discussed this before and I don't need to discuss something to death, but I can't seem to sit back and say nothing either.

Just trying to keep the black man down the po po are...

He is only full of what if's when the what if has to do with the police doing something wrong. He would never give the police the benefit of doubt because contrary to eating dinner with the two he knows, he is a hater.

He is only full of what if's when the what if has to do with the police doing something wrong. He would never give the police the benefit of doubt because contrary to eating dinner with the two he knows, he is a hater.

What would those "What ifs" be?

What have I said that isn't a legit possibility?

Actually, besides those two, I have 4 friends who are cops. Calvert, PG, and DC. My uncle flew a Trooper helicopter on the eastern shore, and I have no problem talking to them the same way.

What have you added to this entire thread that would inspire any sort of intelligent debate, or conversation?

You and Baja did nothing but try to personally attack me, and my views, yet you two added absolutely zero content to back up your rediculous assumptions.

If I'm just not that important, you sure like to analyze what I have to say, and sure don't mind posting in this thread.

This story happened in southern MD, and I posted in the southern Md section. No cherry picking involved. Why don't you start posting feel good stories?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_REkgXByDyuU/S7OQjASZIsI/AAAAAAAAGyg/efjoN0B5xbY/s1600/grammar-nazi2.jpg

The story occurred in Southern Maryland, but you have to go to Baltimore to justify the cost of litigation, because it just isn't happening here. This case will be dismissed and Mr. Hodge will get nothing.

SoMdNews.com: Couple files civil suit against MSP, sheriff, government (http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120727/NEWS/707279918/1057/couple-files-civil-suit-against-msp-sheriff-government&template=southernMaryland)

Interesting...I'm all for police not violating your rights, but c'mon dude, it's not just the "African-American", and "Latin" communities.

*Let's see how long it takes before JPC gets in here.

I really don't understand where you are going with all this. There was probable cause to search the home in order to check on the status/welfare of the occupants; the call made to the PD.

If I recall, the LEO stated this. The LEOs did their jobs.

So, I am confused. Do you not want LEOs to do their jobs - in your case? Please, clarify.

The story occurred in Southern Maryland, but you have to go to Baltimore to justify the cost of litigation, because it just isn't happening here. This case will be dismissed and Mr. Hodge will get nothing.

No, because that's an article I remember reading.

I don't have the time right now to go pursue Freedom of Information Act material from different police agencies in Southern Md.

What else ya got?

Lots of judgement and opinion from one side's relating of the events...

Quick look at casesearch shows that Law Enforcement and Mr. Hodge were not exactly strangers... Could that have influenced the interaction between Mr. Hodge and the officers?

Until the actual dispatch logs are released, address & name of the call that the cops were dispatched on, etc., and any other facts are released, think I'll reserve judgement...

Without a doubt we have constitutional rights... The only question is why were the cops at Hodge's door? If that was the dispatch call, then they have no choice but to carry through the investigation... If you are the suspected perp, then they can't exactly take your word for it... If they had the wrong address, you'd think they would have apologized that day... Normally they do... I don't see that in the article...

I really don't understand where you are going with all this. There was probable cause to search the home in order to check on the status/welfare of the occupants; the call made to the PD.

If I recall, the LEO stated this. The LEOs did their jobs.

So, I am confused. Do you not want LEOs to do their jobs - in your case? Please, clarify.

They did their job, at the wrong house. They didn't have probable cause to search this man's house, as he wasn't the one the complaint was for.

They aren't allowed in his house if he didn't want them there.

What would those "What ifs" be?

What have I said that isn't a legit possibility?

Actually, besides those two, I have 4 friends who are cops. Calvert, PG, and DC. My uncle flew a Trooper helicopter on the eastern shore, and I have no problem talking to them the same way.

What have you added to this entire thread that would inspire any sort of intelligent debate, or conversation?

You and Baja did nothing but try to personally attack me, and my views, yet you two added absolutely zero content to back up your rediculous assumptions.

I never made any rediculous assumptions. I don't even know what rediculous means. Never heard of it.

Nope. I know they are in fact Muslim.

I'm not going to get into it any further with you because I know on these topics neither of us will convince the other. But I always think its sad to not have one single positive thought, experience, whatever, etc in reguards to a group (religion/race/etc) of people. I'm pretty sure I have in the past shared my experiences with you of going to grade school with muslim children and how I had nothing but pleasant experiences with them and their families. So we've discussed this before and I don't need to discuss something to death, but I can't seem to sit back and say nothing either.Did/do you have another user name? I don't recall ever posting with you about anything let alone muslims. :lol:

They did their job, at the wrong house. They didn't have probable cause to search this man's house, as he wasn't the one the complaint was for.

They aren't allowed in his house if he didn't want them there.

Harold Hodge told Costella the address was not his...

Means nothing without the dispatch log... Address could have been the 9/11 caller... Go to door, "yup, thats the dude over there that all the screaming was coming from"

Everybody assuming facts not in evidence... me too... :buddies:

I never made any rediculous assumptions. I don't even know what rediculous means. Never heard of it.

Great, another grammer nazi.

Thanks for adding such great content to the thread.

Great, another grammer nazi.

.

:lmao:

I had to go to a meeting... can someone give me the Cliff's Notes on this tread please... :coffee:


TIA :yay:

Means nothing without the dispatch log... Address could have been the 9/11 caller... Go to door, "yup, thats the dude over there that all the screaming was coming from"

Everybody assuming facts not in evidence... me too... :buddies:

My whole problem with this is, the cops talked to everyone. Dad, Mom, kids, and all said everything was fine.

I have a serious problem with police thinking they can just circumvent citizen's rights.

I have a serious problem with an increase of police raids that end up with someone's pet being shot, or worse, someone/someone's child being killed by police being at the wrong house.

In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more. With an increase in raids, comes an increase in mistakes.

I had to go to a meeting... can someone give me the Cliff's Notes on this tread please... :coffee:


TIA :yay:

Chris again, is taking someone's civil complaint and making if factual, saying the cops are bad. Most everyone else disagrees.

:killingme

You all think I want to be a cop?

No, you wanted to but we're deemed unfit. They didn't want you, so now you're mad at them and have this silly internet vendetta against cops, shaking your little weiner at them and calling them bad.

My whole problem with this is, the cops talked to everyone. Dad, Mom, kids, and all said everything was fine.

I have a serious problem with police thinking they can just circumvent citizen's rights.

They didn't!

I have a serious problem with an increase of police raids that end up with someone's pet being shot, or worse, someone/someone's child being killed by police being at the wrong house.

Where was someone's child killed? More lies Chris?

In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more. With an increase in raids, comes an increase in mistakes.

Yes, cops are human and they do make mistakes. Lets all be litigious and sue.

Too bad. Move to France.

My whole problem with this is, the cops talked to everyone. Dad, Mom, kids, and all said everything was fine.

I have a serious problem with police thinking they can just circumvent citizen's rights.

I have a serious problem with an increase of police raids that end up with someone's pet being shot, or worse, someone/someone's child being killed by police being at the wrong house.

In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more. With an increase in raids, comes an increase in mistakes.

I had four cops show up at my door many years ago looking for someone who didn't live there and I did not know. I was respectful and helpful to them. They thanked me, then I watched as another six cops came out from behind my house. Then I went back to bed.

That's how most of these things work. When it doesn't work this way, I can't help but think that there's more to the story.

I really don't understand where you are going with all this. There was probable cause to search the home in order to check on the status/welfare of the occupants; the call made to the PD.

If I recall, the LEO stated this. The LEOs did their jobs.

So, I am confused. Do you not want LEOs to do their jobs - in your case? Please, clarify.
You didn't read the story did you?

I would not have left either until I knew the wife & kids were ok whether or not it was the correct address.



:eyebrow:

so it is ok to harass someone in the late hours of the night ......

:blushing: 'Opps wrong address, are your wife and kids ok'

They did their job, at the wrong house. They didn't have probable cause to search this man's house, as he wasn't the one the complaint was for.

They aren't allowed in his house if he didn't want them there.
it wasn't even the wrong house, it was just a house that was close by.

Our house was "raided" once a few years ago (if you call 6 LEOs in the yard with guns drawn a raid). My husband was doing some work to the phone lines in our house and 911 was called. No house phone was operable for us to know that dispatch called us or to answer it- so officers were dispatched. My husband emerged from our garage door in dark clothing and dirty from being under the house running phone lines. six officers in our yard with guns drawn- could have ended very badly I guess if reactions had been different. As it was, my husband stood still, spoke reasonably and politely with the officers. They asked who was in the house, and asked to see me and our infant son to be sure everything was ok. We explained what happened with the phones. I felt bad at wasting their time, offered them a beverage (declined) and they went on their way. I in no way felt put upon by them requesting to see the occupants of the house and in going the extra mile to be sure all was well. Of course, they were not at the wrong address, but it certainly could have gone very differently if someone were a bit high strung or my husband had acted as suspicious as I am sure he looked at the time.

My whole problem with this is, the cops talked to everyone. Dad, Mom, kids, and all said everything was fine.

I have a serious problem with police thinking they can just circumvent citizen's rights.

I have a serious problem with an increase of police raids that end up with someone's pet being shot, or worse, someone/someone's child being killed by police being at the wrong house.

In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more. With an increase in raids, comes an increase in mistakes.


You are assuming still... The cops MUST talk to everyone to ensure they call was completed... While I was USAF I got called to a domestic, wife said he never touched me, while the blood dripped down her chin... Everything was fine...

Was this one a case of mistaken identity? Was it the right house and everyone lied so 'daddy dearest' wouldn't get another Assault Conviction?

There is no circumvention of the rights if that was the home they were sent to check welfare at... If it WASN'T the right house, they should have apologized as soon as it became clear... That isn't in the article, which would lead you to believe it was the house they were called for... Dispatch logs, witness statements, etc., if that is so will prove it... Case closed...

Not enough information to base a decision on whether this was a case of Cops being wrong, or Cops being right...

I don't know where you got your stats, but I'd like to see the raw data... Personally, I think it's an example of a bull#### stat with no context... My guess of what I'd find is that in 1980 they would send one cop to serve a warrant... After getting a whole lot of them killed, they decided maybe sending in a bigger team would be more appropriate... I'm sure the raw data would also show the differences between a 'raid' and a 'welfare check'?

I have a problem with a cop stopping me for speeding and wanting to search my bike... I would have a problem if one showed up at my house and wanted to look around without having a warrant, or having been dispatched specifically from the desk...

But where goes your outrage if you do find out that Mr. Hodge was indeed the one called in for the disturbance? If the neighbor testifies that he was screaming at his wife he was going to shoot her?

No, you wanted to but we're deemed unfit. They didn't want you, so now you're mad at them and have this silly internet vendetta against cops, shaking your little weiner at them and calling them bad.

:killingme

If I wanted a job where I worked sh!tty hours, for low pay, and had to deal with dimwits of society all day, I would.

Please, enlighten us as to why you won't let go of the police's teet. It's ok, you'll be fine by yourself.

Yes, cops are human and they do make mistakes. Lets all be litigious and sue.

Too bad. Move to France.

Kid shot? Aiyana Jones, 7-Year-Old Shot And Killed By Detroit Police, Was Sleeping According To Family (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html)

Move to France? That's the best you can come up with?

I had four cops show up at my door many years ago looking for someone who didn't live there and I did not know. I was respectful and helpful to them. They thanked me, then I watched as another six cops came out from behind my house. Then I went back to bed.

That's how most of these things work. When it doesn't work this way, I can't help but think that there's more to the story.

So, just because someone does it a different way than you, it's somehow illegal?

Everything this man did, based on the complaint, is perfectly legal, along with him doing everything the cops asked. He just didn't want them in his house. Did the cops come into your house?

They aren't allowed in his house if he didn't want them there.

That's not the way it works, otherwise these meth labs and crack dens would never get busted, and the woman who had little dead children in her freezer would have never been caught.

Great, another grammer nazi.

Thanks for adding such great content to the thread.

GrammAr.... :lol: :hadto:

The police are required by their Standard Operating Procedures or General Orders to respond to calls for service. From what this case sounds like, it sounds like half of the forum thinks that there was some sort of ill intention on the part of MSP and CCSO for them to knock on a door and verify that everyone was ok inside of the residence. Thats correct, its the citizens right to exercise his 4th amendment right. However, its also the officers jobs to verify that everyone inside of that residence is Ok, and not to leave the area without doing so. People would be quick to assign blame to the responding officers if days later the bodies of the family in the residence were discovered because the irrate man who answered the door denied police entry and police didn't bother to check on the welfare of the other occupants after recieving a domestic disturbance complaint.

Warren Vs. District of Columbia. The Supreme court ruled that responding officers are not responsible for criminals actions. Meaning, if your family is getting raped and tortured and some criminal is inside of the apartment doing these horrible things, the police do not have an obligation to protect you.

This guy is exercising his right, and I don't think the police violated his constitutional right, im sure the courts would side with the officers in light of the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. The officers did not conduct any excessive searches of the residence, ransacking the place, going through drawers and closets. In this case, it does not sound like the irrate man was detained, beaten, and falsely arrested. They simply verified that the welfare of the occupants and left. As for the "harassment claim" there has to be a history of "harassment." He has to prove that there has been a history of the police beating on his door, or that every night and day, detectives and uniformed patrol is pulling him over "for no reason, or simply because of his skin color."

He is probably trying to attempt to sue for damages because he needs money and wants to try to "get attention." The individuals who wrote about lawsuits are correct, the odds of a civil jury awarding him damages for his case are slim to none in Calvert County. He better request a change of venue if he hopes to win big. I do think that in minority and lower income areas you see more lawsuits against the police. That is to be expected, people want and need the money and will often sue every single chance they get. Whether its "finding a bug in my wendy's" to "these police are always harassin me, beating me up and taking my drugs for no reason." While I don't think that all officers are saints, I also don't believe that there are entire police forces simply out blatently wiping their ass with the constitution and trampling peoples rights daily. I think with each lawsuit and judgement won against the departments and officers in those areas, the citizens enjoy more and more crime. Officers quickly get the "blue flu" and quit producing, simply reactive policing only. Nobody wants to lose their job, because some "activist" or "politically connected" individual calls some sort of corrupt chief/sheriff and tells them how they got a speeding ticket. After enough officers are fired for simply doing their jobs, you often see others who observe this behavior quit working. And you get what you have in Washington, D.C. a safe haven for crime and insanity. Where the police are often fired for doing their job, the rest don't do anything about the "problems" and it festers and becomes a massive cesspool of crime and violence. Just like Prince Georges County, which is "On the path to greatness." And Charles County- Where eagles fly.... and Waldorf has become a hotbed for violence and robberies. Look at those communities i've named. Look at the police patrol them, or lack thereof and see how bad their violent crime rates are. Notice how their alcohol related crashes and fatalities are up because people aren't arrested and prosecuted for DUI. Notice how you can simply "do whatever you want" and get away with it.

As far as the increased SWAT team usage, America has become more and more violent with each passing day. People are actively shooting at police more, attacking officers more, attacking each other more. Just look at the last time a SWAT team wasn't used. Anne Arundel County Police Detectives went to go interview an individual in connection with a double homicide. The subject exits the house and starts shooting at police, striking one of them. In Anne Arundel just today, a SWAT team raided a house where the neighbors complained about his marijuana farm in the backyard. They seized tons of guns and ammunition. Im sure if uniformed patrol knocked on his door and inquired about his marijuana stash, I doubt he would have been that kind gentle citizen and gone quietly to jail. Those guns he had weren't for target shooting, they were protecting his drug trafficking operation.

Kid shot? Aiyana Jones, 7-Year-Old Shot And Killed By Detroit Police, Was Sleeping According To Family (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html)

Screw that kid.
Police arrested the target of the raid, a 34-year-old man suspected of killing a 17-year-old boy, in the upstairs unit in the two-family home. Police had warrants to search both properties, and family members of the slain girl were seen going in and out of both on Monday. The suspect has not been charged, and it was not immediately clear what relationship he had to the slain girl.

Perhaps if the family didn't want the girl killed, they should have considered that before they started hanging out with murderers. Clearly the family didn't give two ####s about that kid, so why should we?

That's not the way it works, otherwise these meth labs and crack dens would never get busted, and the woman who had little dead children in her freezer would have never been caught.
Meth labs get busted because of good police work and lawfully issued warrants, not because dirty harry kicks in the door because he knows in his gut that something's going on in the house. The woman with the kids in the freezer was caught because the last one got away and a neighbor took her in.

Wirelessly posted


They aren't allowed in his house if he didn't want them there.

That's not the way it works, otherwise these meth labs and crack dens would never get busted, and the woman who had little dead children in her freezer would have never been caught.

That's the way it is supposed to work EXCEPT in cases of probably cause or an issued warrant. In freezer baby they had probable cause, an abused child wandering around claiming to live in that house. In most of you meth lab cases I would bet they have warrants prior to the search.

If this story is to be believed as written, there was neither in this case.

In 1980, 2,884 SWAT deployments were recorded nationwide; the number today is estimated by experts at 50,000 annually or more. With an increase in raids, comes an increase in mistakes.
Wow! Look at you with all the stats!!

Now post what percentage of the 2884 and the 50,000 were at the wrong address.

And why are we talking about SWAT anyway? One MSP & a couple of CCSO's doesn't constitute a SWAT team.

Did anyone run the 2 individuals who are suing the county/state through casesearch? They both have a history of civil lawsuits/judgements in civil court and criminal history as well. They should both go apply for a seasons pass to the courthouse.

You are assuming still... The cops MUST talk to everyone to ensure they call was completed... While I was USAF I got called to a domestic, wife said he never touched me, while the blood dripped down her chin... Everything was fine...

Yes, they do need to talk to everyone, when they're at the right house. They don't NEED to talk to anyone when they're at the wrong house.

Was this one a case of mistaken identity? Was it the right house and everyone lied so 'daddy dearest' wouldn't get another Assault Conviction?

There is no circumvention of the rights if that was the home they were sent to check welfare at... If it WASN'T the right house, they should have apologized as soon as it became clear... That isn't in the article, which would lead you to believe it was the house they were called for... Dispatch logs, witness statements, etc., if that is so will prove it... Case closed...

Yes, it will. Until that comes out to the public (doubt it), I can assume.

Not enough information to base a decision on whether this was a case of Cops being wrong, or Cops being right...

I never said any of the cops were either wrong, nor right. Certain people on here automatically assume that.

I don't know where you got your stats, but I'd like to see the raw data... Personally, I think it's an example of a bull#### stat with no context... My guess of what I'd find is that in 1980 they would send one cop to serve a warrant... After getting a whole lot of them killed, they decided maybe sending in a bigger team would be more appropriate... I'm sure the raw data would also show the differences between a 'raid' and a 'welfare check'?

The number comes from "Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police," edited by Peter B. Kraska -- page 7, chapter 1, "The Military-Criminal Justice Blur" by Prof. Kraska.

My guess would be the drug war.

I have a problem with a cop stopping me for speeding and wanting to search my bike... I would have a problem if one showed up at my house and wanted to look around without having a warrant, or having been dispatched specifically from the desk...

We agree on that.

But where goes your outrage if you do find out that Mr. Hodge was indeed the one called in for the disturbance? If the neighbor testifies that he was screaming at his wife he was going to shoot her?

Honestly, this isn't about whether or not he actually was abusing her. It sucks, but laws, are laws. We can't go around certain things because someone MIGHT be a criminal. Rights are rights. Some choose to chastise me for exercising them, while in the same breath they talk of a government that follows the constitution, or talk about how Obama is trying to hurt the 2nd Amendment.

:buddies:

Wirelessly posted



That's the way it is supposed to work EXCEPT in cases of probably cause or an issued warrant. In freezer baby they had probable cause, an abused child wandering around claiming to live in that house. In most of you meth lab cases I would bet they have warrants prior to the search.

If this story is to be believed as written, there was neither in this case.

If they have a report of domestic violence, they have both a right and an obligation to investigate. If they show up to ask if everything is okay and they are met by someone refusing to cooperate and demanding they leave, then they have a right and an obligation to ensure the safety of the occupants. That could include coming into the house uninvited.

Once it has been determined that nobody is in danger, their right to be there runs out. If they saw something illegal while they were there, they would have to get a warrant to continue any search.

:killingme




Kid shot? Aiyana Jones, 7-Year-Old Shot And Killed By Detroit Police, Was Sleeping According To Family (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/aiyana-jones-7-year-old-s_n_578246.html)

Move to France? That's the best you can come up with?




More mis-information by Chris. The cops were at the right house in this incident. You are so full of crap

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



That's the way it is supposed to work EXCEPT in cases of probably cause or an issued warrant. In freezer baby they had probable cause, an abused child wandering around claiming to live in that house. In most of you meth lab cases I would bet they have warrants prior to the search.

If this story is to be believed as written, there was neither in this case.

If they have a report of domestic violence, they have both a right and an obligation to investigate. If they show up to ask if everything is okay and they are met by someone refusing to cooperate and demanding they leave, then they have a right and an obligation to ensure the safety of the occupants. That could include coming into the house uninvited.

Once it has been determined that nobody is in danger, their right to be there runs out. If they saw something illegal while they were there, they would have to get a warrant to continue any search.

The way this story was worded it sounds like they were not called to that address.

If they were called to that address then you are correct.

Honestly, this isn't about whether or not he actually was abusing her. It sucks, but laws, are laws. We can't go around certain things because someone MIGHT be a criminal. Rights are rights. Some choose to chastise me for exercising them, while in the same breath they talk of a government that follows the constitution, or talk about how Obama is trying to hurt the 2nd Amendment.



The law allows the cops to enter the house if they have reason to believe that someone may be in danger. Their entry into the house is tightly focused on ensuring that there isn't someone hurt or about to be hurt.

Maybe you should review the law before saying they broke it.

The 4th protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. Entry in order to protect people in danger has been upheld as a reasonable search.

We can't go around certain things because someone MIGHT be a criminal.
:buddies:

If it comes out that they were at the wrong house, knew they were at the wrong house and did it anyway? It sounds we'll agree on all of it...

The police are required by their Standard Operating Procedures or General Orders to respond to calls for service. From what this case sounds like, it sounds like half of the forum thinks that there was some sort of ill intention on the part of MSP and CCSO for them to knock on a door and verify that everyone was ok inside of the residence. Thats correct, its the citizens right to exercise his 4th amendment right. However, its also the officers jobs to verify that everyone inside of that residence is Ok, and not to leave the area without doing so. People would be quick to assign blame to the responding officers if days later the bodies of the family in the residence were discovered because the irrate man who answered the door denied police entry and police didn't bother to check on the welfare of the other occupants after recieving a domestic disturbance complaint.

We agree it's a fine line. This guy complied with the LEOs. He woke his wife, and kids, and they all verified they were fine. That could have been done on the front porch of his house. They didn't need, nor were they wanted, inside his home. That's where the suit comes into play IMO.

Warren Vs. District of Columbia. The Supreme court ruled that responding officers are not responsible for criminals actions. Meaning, if your family is getting raped and tortured and some criminal is inside of the apartment doing these horrible things, the police do not have an obligation to protect you.

This guy is exercising his right, and I don't think the police violated his constitutional right, im sure the courts would side with the officers in light of the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. The officers did not conduct any excessive searches of the residence, ransacking the place, going through drawers and closets. In this case, it does not sound like the irrate man was detained, beaten, and falsely arrested. They simply verified that the welfare of the occupants and left. As for the "harassment claim" there has to be a history of "harassment." He has to prove that there has been a history of the police beating on his door, or that every night and day, detectives and uniformed patrol is pulling him over "for no reason, or simply because of his skin color."

True, but doesn't being detained mean the guy didn't feel he could leave? Technically, he could have just gone upstairs, but then a few cops are walking around his home. The whole "African American" argument is :bs: to me. I'm sure we all agree on that.

He is probably trying to attempt to sue for damages because he needs money and wants to try to "get attention." The individuals who wrote about lawsuits are correct, the odds of a civil jury awarding him damages for his case are slim to none in Calvert County. He better request a change of venue if he hopes to win big. I do think that in minority and lower income areas you see more lawsuits against the police. That is to be expected, people want and need the money and will often sue every single chance they get. Whether its "finding a bug in my wendy's" to "these police are always harassin me, beating me up and taking my drugs for no reason." While I don't think that all officers are saints, I also don't believe that there are entire police forces simply out blatently wiping their ass with the constitution and trampling peoples rights daily. I think with each lawsuit and judgement won against the departments and officers in those areas, the citizens enjoy more and more crime. Officers quickly get the "blue flu" and quit producing, simply reactive policing only. Nobody wants to lose their job, because some "activist" or "politically connected" individual calls some sort of corrupt chief/sheriff and tells them how they got a speeding ticket. After enough officers are fired for simply doing their jobs, you often see others who observe this behavior quit working. And you get what you have in Washington, D.C. a safe haven for crime and insanity. Where the police are often fired for doing their job, the rest don't do anything about the "problems" and it festers and becomes a massive cesspool of crime and violence. Just like Prince Georges County, which is "On the path to greatness." And Charles County- Where eagles fly.... and Waldorf has become a hotbed for violence and robberies. Look at those communities i've named. Look at the police patrol them, or lack thereof and see how bad their violent crime rates are. Notice how their alcohol related crashes and fatalities are up because people aren't arrested and prosecuted for DUI. Notice how you can simply "do whatever you want" and get away with it.

I think its arguable that police are reactive in their daily duties. Yes, you get things from traffic stops, but largely they are speeding tickets, or minor traffic violations. The real crimes comes in burglaries, murders, etc. and unfortunatel, police seem to show up after the fact. By the way, I don't want you, or anyone else to think that I think all cops are bad. I don't, and I've said that multiple times. Others choose not to see that, and that's fine, but the bad cops are out there, and it's up to the public to point them out. If not, who will?

As far as the increased SWAT team usage, America has become more and more violent with each passing day. People are actively shooting at police more, attacking officers more, attacking each other more. Just look at the last time a SWAT team wasn't used. Anne Arundel County Police Detectives went to go interview an individual in connection with a double homicide. The subject exits the house and starts shooting at police, striking one of them. In Anne Arundel just today, a SWAT team raided a house where the neighbors complained about his marijuana farm in the backyard. They seized tons of guns and ammunition. Im sure if uniformed patrol knocked on his door and inquired about his marijuana stash, I doubt he would have been that kind gentle citizen and gone quietly to jail. Those guns he had weren't for target shooting, they were protecting his drug trafficking operation.

This I disagree with. If America is more dangerous, why has crime actually dropped? "Even as population grows from under 200 million to over 300 million the crime rate (violent and property) per 100,000 people climbs and then falls during the past 50 years. When you watch the news and listen to people talk about society, a common theme is that America is heading in the wrong direction."
U.S. Crime Rates 1960-2010: The Facts Might Surprise You (http://leftcall.com/2012/02/23/u-s-crime-rates-1960-2010-the-facts-might-surprise-you/)

As far as drug dealers shootings go, I disagree also. While drug suspects are often armed, numbers fail to support drugs being an especially dangerous area of policing. Despite 1.5 million drug arrests per year, officer fatality reports compiled by FBI and police memorial groups find an average of 4.3 officers killed annually in drug enforcement in the past decade. Drug arrests led to officer deaths fewer than one in 350,000 times -- 2008 saw seven, 2009 none. This is an admittedly surprising finding, but consistent over many years. Drug dealers are in it for the money.

FBI figures show that 72 police officers were unfortunately killed last year. "Of these 72 felonious deaths, 19 officers were killed during ambushes (14 during unprovoked attacks and five due to entrapment/premeditation situations); five were slain while investigating suspicious persons or circumstances; 11 were killed during traffic pursuits/stops; five of the fallen officers interrupted robberies in progress or were pursuing robbery suspects; and four died while responding to disturbance calls (one being a domestic disturbance).

Six officers died during tactical situations; one died while conducting investigative activity; one officer died while handling or transporting a prisoner; and 20 officers were killed while attempting other arrests."
FBI &mdash; FBI Releases 2011 Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty (http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-preliminary-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty)

I see nothing about drug activity killing cops.


:yay:

If it comes out that they were at the wrong house, knew they were at the wrong house and did it anyway? It sounds we'll agree on all of it...
Since you won't actually open the story and read it, I'll post this paragraph out of it.

He said a man identified himself as MSP Cpl. Costella and said he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address. Harold Hodge told Costella the address was not his and Costella then allegedly asked if he heard any yelling or screaming. Harold Hodge said he did not and closed the door.

You'll not "at another Sark Court address", this means not at this house. It's not the wrong house, it's just a house in the same neighborhood.

More mis-information by Chris. The cops were at the right house in this incident. You are so full of crap

Hey, genius...

I have a serious problem with an increase of police raids that end up with someone's pet being shot, or worse, someone/someone's child being killed by police being at the wrong house.

Where was someone's child killed? More lies Chris?

Remember that quote, that you typed?

So, what about the article I provided was "mis-information"? You said nothign about, nor did I say anything about them being at the wrong address in this case.

Since you won't actually open the story and read it, I'll post this paragraph out of it.

You'll not "at another Sark Court address", this means not at this house. It's not the wrong house, it's just a house in the same neighborhood.


Opened it, read the whole thing, read Hodge's criminal record...

Again... MSP and CCSO would have apologized for being at the wrong house correct? I didn't see Evans say that in the article... I'm not seeing MSP say it either... When all the facts come out instead of a one-sided lawsuit, I won't have to guess if a career liar is telling the truth? Cause as of now, I still don't have the cops version at all...

Did anyone run the 2 individuals who are suing the county/state through casesearch? They both have a history of civil lawsuits/judgements in civil court and criminal history as well. They should both go apply for a seasons pass to the courthouse.

And there you go. People act like cops just come kick in the door of some innocent senior citizen and shoot their care dog, or bust into some nice family's house and gun down Buffy and Jody. So far all the "wronged" parties in these incidents are a bunch of dirtbags who should have been firebombed out of existence long ago.

The media latches onto these miscreants and tries to paint them as model citizens who were victimized by evil cops, when just a smidge of further investigation shows a very different picture.

Opened it, read the whole thing, read Hodge's criminal record...

Again... MSP and CCSO would have apologized for being at the wrong house correct? I didn't see Evans say that in the article... I'm not seeing MSP say it either... When all the facts come out instead of a one-sided lawsuit, I won't have to guess if a career liar is telling the truth? Cause as of now, I still don't have the cops version at all...

No, they don't have to apologize. Here's a story where cops thought a judge was a criminal, held her at gun point, and never apologized.

Police Confront Broward Judge at Gunpoint | NBC 6 South Florida (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Broward-judge-ordered-by-deputies-come-out-with-your-hands-up-120755199.html?dr)

“I know no one apologized, OK? And, to me, if you want to make amends for something, you want to make peace, you apologize, you shake, you leave, you say ‘I'm sorry,’" she said. "And, you know, the cop that had his gun on me, he said ‘well, I was fearing for my life.’ I said ‘really! You were fearing for your life? Really?’ He said ‘forget it - I'm out of here.'"

And there you go. People act like cops just come kick in the door of some innocent senior citizen and shoot their care dog, or bust into some nice family's house and gun down Buffy and Jody. So far all the "wronged" parties in these incidents are a bunch of dirtbags who should have been firebombed out of existence long ago.

The media latches onto these miscreants and tries to paint them as model citizens who were victimized by evil cops, when just a smidge of further investigation shows a very different picture.

The problem is, they do just kick down the door of certain, innoncent people's homes, shoot dogs, shoot people, etc. Does it happen often? No. Does it happen? Yes. What happens to the cops who shoot and kill these people, or animals? Most times, nothing. Just collateral damage.

I guess the mayor of Berwyn Heights is a "dirtbag"? You know, when the cops suspected him of drug running? Then kicked down their door, and shot both their dogs, one in the back as he ran away?

Just because someone has a past criminal record doesn't mean they don't have rights as well.

And there you go. People act like cops just come kick in the door of some innocent senior citizen and shoot their care dog, or bust into some nice family's house and gun down Buffy and Jody. So far all the "wronged" parties in these incidents are a bunch of dirtbags who should have been firebombed out of existence long ago.

The media latches onto these miscreants and tries to paint them as model citizens who were victimized by evil cops, when just a smidge of further investigation shows a very different picture.AND the guy has had assault charges filed against him.

No, they don't have to apologize. Here's a story where cops thought a judge was a criminal, held her at gun point, and never apologized.

Police Confront Broward Judge at Gunpoint | NBC 6 South Florida (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Broward-judge-ordered-by-deputies-come-out-with-your-hands-up-120755199.html?dr)

I didn't say they HAD to apologize... Although they did in this case?

Funny, there is that pesky racial thing again (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/04/30/lamberti-apologizes-to-broward-judge-in-wrong-house-raid/)!

AND the guy has had assault charges filed against him.

Bill Gates has a criminal record.

Al Pacino was pulled over and the officers found him, along with 2 others wearing black gloves and masks. They were also carrying a loaded gun.

Mick Jagger has an assault charge.

Carmen Electra, Mike Tyson, Dennis Hopper, I'm sure Michael Jackson could go somewhere in this list, etc.

Many famous, and high profile people have criminal records.

Your point?

https://www.rutherford.org/files_images/general/01_24_2012_Complaint_Hodge.pdf

according to court records.... this current case is not the 1st lawsuit... this is amongst approx 8 others in the past 10 yrs....

I didn't say they HAD to apologize... Although they did in this case?

Funny, there is that pesky racial thing again (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/04/30/lamberti-apologizes-to-broward-judge-in-wrong-house-raid/)!

I'd be more worried that that pesky police report didn't match up with the incidents.

A police report said Holmes came outside, identified herself as a judge and told deputies she was armed with a revolver. She initially refused orders to put the gun down but eventually did.

Former US Attorney Kendall Coffey spoke for Judge Holmes, who was not at a news conference held and who has declined to speak with reporters since the incident at her sister Carmita Scarlett’s Deerfield Beach home.

The police report made it clear the BSO officer writing it believed the Judge was argumentative and uncooperative, and Coffey said that doesn’t reflect what happened.

“We think that it’s unfortunate that anyone would portray this very judicious person, one of the most respected judges in the court, as some kind of gun-toting, confrontational judge,” Coffey said.

The police report of the incident claims Judge Homes was confrontational., and didn’t follow police requests.



Coffey denied that Friday, and said the judge identified herself, explained she had a weapon, and placed it on the ground, later adding a cell phone she was carrying.

The police report said Homes was asked to sit on the ground, and refused. According to the report she stated, “There’s no way I was going to sit on the ground, you’d have to shoot me to get me to sit on the ground tonight.”

Speaking at the front door of her sister’s home, backed by family members and neighbors, Coffey said it happened differently.

“The officers say, ‘get away from the gun’, she then stands back. That’s it. That’s not a confrontation. That’s a thoughtful, judicious person who knows the law, who respects police authority, and is doing exactly what she should have been doing,” Coffey said.


But hey, I'm sure a judge has plenty reason to lie....:sarcasm:

Not directed at you Asmodeus

Statistics and reports. Oh how they can be manipulated to paint the picture that "crime" is going down... Even Johns Hopkins University would agree that Chicago isn't Candyland this year with a soaring murder rate and ongoing turf battles that run unchecked inside of the city. I don't think theres anything there that shows that crime is on the downslope. With illegal immigration on the increase, and more and more cities "revitalizing and gentrifying" I think what your seeing is a distribution of crime, not a reduction of crime. This distribution of crime in areas into normally peaceful areas has caused a reduction of crime in some of the traditionally most violent areas. Forcing a trinidad killer from Washington, D.C. out of his section 8 via eviction isn't solving the issue after he promptly takes up residence in Landover or Prince Frederick. The UCR which the FBI runs for which all crime statistics come from is even jacked up. More often, you see police departments "washing the boards." Burglary's are now vandalisms and thefts. Robberies are now Assaults and Thefts. Auto Theft is bumped down to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle. Even as the statistics go, more and more of the victims know their attackers and are frequently told "Go see the commissioner or magistrate." In these cases, a report isn't taken. The end result is at the end of the year, results are tallied and ridiculous numbers are sent in to the federal government stating how felonious crime is down, the grants are working, everything is honky dory. Its all political, the numbers used to justify re elections and keep the politicians in power while keeping the citizens snowed and in the dark.

The Mayor of Berwyn Heights is the result of a botched investigation according to the news. Poor narcotics investigation, combined with the use of a "Swat team" that doesn't train with the police agency that they were contracted out for. I don't think anyone at any time ran the history of that residence or did a simple yahoo search which would have revealed who the individual was. A simple canvas of the neighborhood would have revealed that he was a mayor and most likely not a drug kingpin as he was portrayed to be. I don't think that theres some sort of government conspiracy to use military and swat teams against the citizens daily without just cause. I can say that wherever there is drugs and money, theres usually guns to protect that from watching the news. You often see Juarez Mexico where the "police" are often wearing masks and riding around in gun trucks are battling with cartel goons daily. I don't think that representation of the police here in this country.

Domestic Violence incidents are one of the top killers of law enforcement officers in the nation along with traffic stops where violent confrontations arise out of the circumstances. I would argue that the country has become more violent due to the re distribution of criminals from big cities into quiet often low crime suburban and rural areas where they can roam unchecked often catching a unsuspecting police force and population by suprise allowing them to further their criminal activity.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_09-cv-02252/pdf/USCOURTS-mdd-8_09-cv-02252-0.pdf

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Hodge_v_BoardofCountyComm'rs,etal_Opinion_1010.pdf

And there you go. People act like cops just come kick in the door of some innocent senior citizen and shoot their care dog, or bust into some nice family's house and gun down Buffy and Jody. So far all the "wronged" parties in these incidents are a bunch of dirtbags who should have been firebombed out of existence long ago.

The media latches onto these miscreants and tries to paint them as model citizens who were victimized by evil cops, when just a smidge of further investigation shows a very different picture.
There's the final word on the matter, DJ don't like them so we'll take them out back and shoot them.





Not really going to be the final word

I'd be more worried that that pesky police report didn't match up with the incidents.





But hey, I'm sure a judge has plenty reason to lie....:sarcasm:

Not directed at you Asmodeus

Judge didn't lie... None of those words came out of her mouth... The only thing so far she said/they said was the "sit on the ground"... The rest of it seems to have come from the racially motivated sister...

While Coffey stood by as Scarlett spoke, he pointed out more than once that he did not represent her, that she did not speak for his client, and that Scarlett was sharing her own opinions.

I'd say when the Sheriff finishes/ed his investigation the cop that wrote the report better hope everyone else there in blue backed him up... I doubt we'd see the dismissal/firing until the next time he's up for reelection... Then it would be about how he 'cleaned-up' the department...

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/Hodge_v_BoardofCountyComm'rs,etal_Opinion_1010.pdf

Wow. This Hodge character has a twin that used to live in the Leonardtown area; another serial lawsuit filer.

Wow. This Hodge character has a twin that used to live in the Leonardtown area; another serial lawsuit filer.

same person.

And in reference to the Broward County Sheriff incident, I don't think that she speaks for the "black" population of America. Why would officers need sensitivity training because they are entering "black town" as she put it? According to her own words, officers need to treat black citizens differently than citizens of any other skin color? "Oh im sorry sir, your black, you have been wronged because of your skin color here in America, im not going to stop you or pull you over for your speeding violation?" My guess is the white speeding violator gets it because the cop fears a complaint from the black motorist?

While I think that there have been instances in the past where things have been bad for certain cultures, its not a widely accepted modern day excuse for your criminal behavior. The fact that she asserts the race card as a factor every time theres a police incident with her seems to be an indication that perhaps she's a closet racist and undereducated. To my understanding from what has been written and studied in the past is that racists are often ignorant and poorly educated? Only in America..... :patriot:

same person.

LOL, I don't think so. ..different color of...hair.

Judge didn't lie... None of those words came out of her mouth... The only thing so far she said/they said was the "sit on the ground"... The rest of it seems to have come from the racially motivated sister...



I'd say when the Sheriff finishes/ed his investigation the cop that wrote the report better hope everyone else there in blue backed him up... I doubt we'd see the dismissal/firing until the next time he's up for reelection... Then it would be about how he 'cleaned-up' the department...

I didn't say she did. The report lied.

That second part is exactly what's wrong. Some cops writes a report that could potentially lock someone up, and all he has to do is have the support of his boys in blue? This is an issue. It's happened before, it'll continue happening, and it's been pointed out many times that they have lied, or fudged their report, and it alwasy seems to be against the person being tried. THIS is what I've been trying to point out. Who is there to make sure cops aren't doing this? I'm not saying it happens a lot, but when it does happen, it could get someone locked up for a long time. I just don't understand how that's ok, with anyone.

What if this woman wasn't a judge? Do you think the sheriff would have known she was in good moral character?

Yes a simple case search of this "plaintiff" will show he seems to have a disrepect for the righs of others, assault, etc. A google of his name shows many frivolous lawsuits about his civil rights. You would think that someone whose rights had been violated so many times, would think twice before he got antogonistic with law enforcement. He is nothing more than a litigious cry baby. If he really wants to help stand up for African Americans, try volunteering with at-risk youth, read to children, volunteer with the elderly, teach others to learn to help themselves through education and hardwork, etc. All these lawsuits could be time better spent. Of course, thats not really what he is about now is it? More like he wants to argue with anyone who looks sideways at him. He needs to grow up, stop with the whining already!!

And in reference to the Broward County Sheriff incident, I don't think that she speaks for the "black" population of America. Why would officers need sensitivity training because they are entering "black town" as she put it? According to her own words, officers need to treat black citizens differently than citizens of any other skin color? "Oh im sorry sir, your black, you have been wronged because of your skin color here in America, im not going to stop you or pull you over for your speeding violation?" My guess is the white speeding violator gets it because the cop fears a complaint from the black motorist?

While I think that there have been instances in the past where things have been bad for certain cultures, its not a widely accepted modern day excuse for your criminal behavior. The fact that she asserts the race card as a factor every time theres a police incident with her seems to be an indication that perhaps she's a closet racist and undereducated. To my understanding from what has been written and studied in the past is that racists are often ignorant and poorly educated? Only in America..... :patriot:

I think black people should be mad at people of their own race, not others. When you've got your baby momma's sister's cousin out there acting crazy, racking up charges, and generally not caring about the law, and then multiply it by the large number of black people that live in certain areas, and ther'e hot beds of crime. Blame your cousins, and not the "white folk", or even the cops. Cops have families, we all know that. They have a tough job, we all know that, but even I wouldn't expect them to have to take certain specialized training to deal with minrotiy neighborhoods. How about people in those 'hoods do something to change how officers, and the general public view them. Unfortunately, they just don't care, and it's easier to blame someone else, then point the finger at each other.

I will say that all of the police who have lied and done dirty stuff throughout history, you can often see on the news that they are always caught, indicted, prosecuted and sent to jail if found guilty. Just because there are a few who do things here and there that are illegal doesn't mean entire forces are liars and criminals. I don't think that things are made up daily, police fabricate reports on a daily basis and that theres some sort of lying scheme and conspiracy going on. Every case thats brought forth to the courts is often reviewed by many attorneys and judges and verified and tried based on the evidence and testimony of all parties involved.

An officer who has a history for example of violating individuals rights and committing criminal acts as well as filing falsified paperwork on a daily basis won't go long before he's caught and tried. All of his cases that he's ever prosecuted would be subjected to judicial review for appeals and aquittal. They all get caught sometime if they are doing some sort of criminal dirt.

I didn't say she did. The report lied.

That second part is exactly what's wrong. Some cops writes a report that could potentially lock someone up, and all he has to do is have the support of his boys in blue? This is an issue. It's happened before, it'll continue happening, and it's been pointed out many times that they have lied, or fudged their report, and it alwasy seems to be against the person being tried. THIS is what I've been trying to point out. Who is there to make sure cops aren't doing this? I'm not saying it happens a lot, but when it does happen, it could get someone locked up for a long time. I just don't understand how that's ok, with anyone.

What if this woman wasn't a judge? Do you think the sheriff would have known she was in good moral character?

Not being a judge myself, I would have dropped the magazine out of my weapon, cleared the chamber, placed the weapon on top of the fridge and THEN walked out of the house... Then told the cops it was there (if they were going inside... heh heh...)

Having known more than a few cops over the year, I'm not a big believer in the 'code of silence' thing... Most are unlikely to perjure themselves when it could cost them their jobs, over something so trivial...

She said the report lied. Not the Sheriff. If it lied, why did she not press the issue? She's a freakin judge and she says the cops lied? Doesn't she kinda have to assume in the courtroom they are telling the truth? What does that do for the credibility of those cops if they appear before her? Wouldn't the simple fact that she's called them liars give some defense attorney carte-blanc for a mistrial involving any one of them and their testimony?

"she has tremendous respect for them..."... doh??? If she truly believes they lied in the report doesn't she have a duty as an officer of the court to do something about it?

I have some doubts actually... lol...

I will say that all of the police who have lied and done dirty stuff throughout history, you can often see on the news that they are always caught, indicted, prosecuted and sent to jail if found guilty. Just because there are a few who do things here and there that are illegal doesn't mean entire forces are liars and criminals. I don't think that things are made up daily, police fabricate reports on a daily basis and that theres some sort of lying scheme and conspiracy going on. Every case thats brought forth to the courts is often reviewed by many attorneys and judges and verified and tried based on the evidence and testimony of all parties involved.

An officer who has a history for example of violating individuals rights and committing criminal acts as well as filing falsified paperwork on a daily basis won't go long before he's caught and tried. All of his cases that he's ever prosecuted would be subjected to judicial review for appeals and aquittal. They all get caught sometime if they are doing some sort of criminal dirt.

And that's how it should happen. Again, I'm not saying all cops do this, or are bad, but it does happen, we all know this. Things happen, and often the police can't keep up with the sheer amount of laws we have. Like people being arrested for filming police, or open carrying. That's one thing. Another thing is completely biasing the police report to make the bad guy seem, well, worse. We can all hope, and wish they all get caught, but often times, it takes citizens with cameras to get them caught. Police are given benefit of the doubt most times, and a camera is the best set of un-biased eyes anyone can have in a case.

I will say that almost all the times I've had a run-in with officers, it's been nothing but respectful, and simple. Only twice has there been any friction, if you want to call it that.

1). I'm between 2 cars, one in front, one behind. Going north on 4. After crusing for awhile, I notice a SUV pacing the pack. I make sure I'm doing 60mph (I can see the LED lights in his grill), next thing you know, he flips the lights on, and cuts the car behind me off, pulls me over. I get a ticket for doing 80mph, and I'm on my way.

Court day comes, and the judge askes the cop if he used laser, or radar. Cops says "radar". I ask the cop, "If you're using radar, how can you say for sure I was the one supposedly doing 80mph? I was between 2 other cars, and you were behind us"? Judge says, "None of that here, 1 point, and pay your fine". I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, and the cop should have had to prove he clocked me, not me having to prove that I wasn't speeding.

Not really a big deal, more of a bummer.

2). Coming off a road onto Rt.4 north. I turn right, and I see a cop that was in the left hand turning lane pull out, and pull me over. First thing he says when he walks up is "Do you have problems with the Calvert County Police Department?", "What? No.", I said. He says "Well, you're not displaying your front tag properly". I had just got the car, and it didn't have a front tag holder, so my tag was between my dash, and windshield. He gave me a warning, and we were on our way.

For those of you that think I'm a cop hater, that was for you. I'm far from a cop hater. What I hate, is people with power, that abise that power. I gurantee, any good cop, doesn't have to worry about that.

Not being a judge myself, I would have dropped the magazine out of my weapon, cleared the chamber, placed the weapon on top of the fridge and THEN walked out of the house... Then told the cops it was there (if they were going inside... heh heh...)

Having known more than a few cops over the year, I'm not a big believer in the 'code of silence' thing... Most are unlikely to perjure themselves when it could cost them their jobs, over something so trivial...

She said the report lied. Not the Sheriff. If it lied, why did she not press the issue? She's a freakin judge and she says the cops lied? Doesn't she kinda have to assume in the courtroom they are telling the truth? What does that do for the credibility of those cops if they appear before her? Wouldn't the simple fact that she's called them liars give some defense attorney carte-blanc for a mistrial involving any one of them and their testimony?

"she has tremendous respect for them..."... doh??? If she truly believes they lied in the report doesn't she have a duty as an officer of the court to do something about it?

I have some doubts actually... lol...

All good questions. I assume she didn't want any more friction between herself, and the police force. Hard to say.

I don't think that large area's where black's or hispanics or any population of any race lives is a "hotbed" of crime because of the race that lives there. I think its based on the race, family makeups, income level, and resources available in the community. Generally speaking its more or less the CULTURE that needs to change. Minority children in my opinion are put at a disadvantage from the infant stage into adulthood because of how they are raised. Telling your child to drop out of school or don't join the military because thats the "white" thing to do is stupid. Telling your children that certain races are a certain way and to not associate with them or how bad they are because they are white/black/hispanic whatever only hampers their ability to grow and compete on the national scale in college and in life. A culture of I'LL FILE A LAWSUIT, or THE POLICE ARE THE BADGUYS, THEY LOCKED UP YOUR DADDY! blaming government and the police department for the actions of an individual often related to the complaining party. Reassigning blame and denying responsibility along with feelings of entitlements have caused this. This CULTURE in America is ruining their children by creating feelings of discontent and thoughts of rage against the police, racial/ethnic populations and the Government often stating that "the man" has some sort of conspiracy to destroy their existence when they choose to live a certain way. This CULTURE that often assigns blame to the police department or government for every single issue in the community. The Local/State/Federal governments that entertain the complaints and lawsuits are enablers to this culture of irresponsibility and often feeds and encourages others to follow suit, often bankrupting the governments of the populations they serve. Usually this is a liberal agenda feeding the populations full of nonsense and bad statistics so that they can attempt to gain support so they can create dictatorship in a democracy by gathering support for "Change." Little do individuals realize that the more they vote for this lifestyle, the more likely they are to end up stuck that way for the rest of their life, ending up in poverty, relying on the government that they voted for and yet hate so much but need the support of just to pay bills. The guy in this case is a habitual complainer and it seems he attempts to make his living off of lawsuits and settlements instead of finding other means of income and activities. He is apart of this CULTURE where everything seems to be not his fault but the fault of others.

And that's how it should happen. Again, I'm not saying all cops do this, or are bad, but it does happen, we all know this. Things happen, and often the police can't keep up with the sheer amount of laws we have. Like people being arrested for filming police, or open carrying. That's one thing. Another thing is completely biasing the police report to make the bad guy seem, well, worse. We can all hope, and wish they all get caught, but often times, it takes citizens with cameras to get them caught. Police are given benefit of the doubt most times, and a camera is the best set of un-biased eyes anyone can have in a case.

I will say that almost all the times I've had a run-in with officers, it's been nothing but respectful, and simple. Only twice has there been any friction, if you want to call it that.

1). I'm between 2 cars, one in front, one behind. Going north on 4. After crusing for awhile, I notice a SUV pacing the pack. I make sure I'm doing 60mph (I can see the LED lights in his grill), next thing you know, he flips the lights on, and cuts the car behind me off, pulls me over. I get a ticket for doing 80mph, and I'm on my way.

Court day comes, and the judge askes the cop if he used laser, or radar. Cops says "radar". I ask the cop, "If you're using radar, how can you say for sure I was the one supposedly doing 80mph? I was between 2 other cars, and you were behind us"? Judge says, "None of that here, 1 point, and pay your fine". I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, and the cop should have had to prove he clocked me, not me having to prove that I wasn't speeding.

Not really a big deal, more of a bummer.

2). Coming off a road onto Rt.4 north. I turn right, and I see a cop that was in the left hand turning lane pull out, and pull me over. First thing he says when he walks up is "Do you have problems with the Calvert County Police Department?", "What? No.", I said. He says "Well, you're not displaying your front tag properly". I had just got the car, and it didn't have a front tag holder, so my tag was between my dash, and windshield. He gave me a warning, and we were on our way.

For those of you that think I'm a cop hater, that was for you. I'm far from a cop hater. What I hate, is people with power, that abise that power. I gurantee, any good cop, doesn't have to worry about that.

Maybe he caught you when you were doing 80 and by the time he caught up with you, you were trying to blend between 2 cars.

Maybe he caught you when you were doing 80 and by the time he caught up with you, you were trying to blend between 2 cars.

Could be, I was too busy texting to see the speedo....

Actually, I thought of that, but I was literally between those 2 cars from the time I pulled onto rt.4 2 miles before I got pulled over.

This was years ago, so it really doesn't matter.

Could be, I was too busy texting to see the speedo....

Actually, I thought of that, but I was literally between those 2 cars from the time I pulled onto rt.4 2 miles before I got pulled over.

This was years ago, so it really doesn't matter.

You never did say that you weren't doing 80. If it doesn't matter, then why bring it up?

You never did say that you weren't doing 80. If it doesn't matter, then why bring it up?

:doh:

Forget it.

"Do you have a problem with the Calvert County Police Department?" I thought they were Sheriffs? lol. I know that you can't lie to them anymore, with that new ticket system they have they can see how many times you've been stopped, where at and what for when they run your information, thats what someone told me anyway. As far as the speeding, the courts are a big source of income in the state of Maryland and other states as well. I believe AAA stated that Md. was one of the top 10 ticket writing states. DC is worse, its so bad they are calling for a review into their fines in DC because the city has become very dependent on revenue generated from the fines and it needs to be about enforcement not revenue. They said fines there have increased 250% in the past 5 years since they started their camera campaigns.

:doh:

Forget it.
you were using it to make a point that you were unjustly pulled over to get people on your side of this thread that you have been beating to death most of the day.

This thread died when everyone found out the parties involved in the lawsuit have a history of lawsuits and criminal mischief. Its simply not credible. As for the corrupt cops? The debate continues...

"Do you have a problem with the Calvert County Police Department?" I thought they were Sheriffs? lol. I know that you can't lie to them anymore, with that new ticket system they have they can see how many times you've been stopped, where at and what for when they run your information, thats what someone told me anyway. As far as the speeding, the courts are a big source of income in the state of Maryland and other states as well. I believe AAA stated that Md. was one of the top 10 ticket writing states. DC is worse, its so bad they are calling for a review into their fines in DC because the city has become very dependent on revenue generated from the fines and it needs to be about enforcement not revenue. They said fines there have increased 250% in the past 5 years since they started their camera campaigns.

Yea, the judge can pull up your complete history with one click.

My DC cop friend said the same thing. He said "You guys are getting screwed with traffic tickets down here". I guess it's different when you work in a town/city with REAL crime. I'm sure the cameras in DC help also :lol:

There's the final word on the matter, DJ don't like them so we'll take them out back and shoot them.

Didn't you see my "I am always right" thread?

But really - the stories are always spun and half-bull####. They act like just any old body, you or me, could have our door kicked in by cops and be shot to death for no reason. Then we dig and find out that the "victims" are actually criminals after all and there was indeed reason to suspect them.

I think of it like how Al Qaeda hides in churches and elementary schools, then keens and pules when military forces blow up the building. "Oh noz!! They killed innocent children!!" No, dickhead, YOU killed those children by trying to use them as a shield.

I got pulled over in AA in my truck coming home from PA... Had all 3 kids in the car with me... Cop came up to the window, took a breath... looked at me... and finally said, "following a bit close weren't you?"...

Huh? I was the first vehicle at the light... pulled out and he nailed me... "No sir, I was well back".. huh? He took my license and paperwork... ran me through the system I guess, then came back, gave it to me and said have a nice day...

My eldest was incensed... I figured either it was the dewrag, no-sleeves tshirt look or they were bolo on a dodge truck... I was a little miffed later... Why he really pulled me over I'll never know... I do know if he had asked to search my truck he'd have gotten a no...

This thread died when everyone found out the parties involved in the lawsuit have a history of lawsuits and criminal mischief. Its simply not credible. As for the corrupt cops? The debate continues...
Not really, I don't care what's in their past, it's the Constitutional right that was infringed on that is the real issue.

I'm thinking about that ####### black militant professor who wouldn't produce ID, then got aggressive, when cops came to check out a reported burglary at his home. His neighbors were kind enough to call the police when they saw someone trying to break into his house, and instead of being grateful someone was looking out for him and simply explaining the situation to the responding cops, he (and his president) turned it into a big racial fight.

I'm thinking about that ####### black militant professor who wouldn't produce ID, then got aggressive, when cops came to check out a reported burglary at his home. His neighbors were kind enough to call the police when they saw someone trying to break into his house, and instead of being grateful someone was looking out for him and simply explaining the situation to the responding cops, he (and his president) turned it into a big racial fight.

Could i come over for some beer!

the cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

when someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, i immediately suspect they have something to hide.

:bs: Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am?

gtfo.

Not really, I don't care what's in their past, it's the Constitutional right that was infringed on that is the real issue.

As far as I'm concerned, serial suit filers like that azzhat should have those right revoked for abusing the system.

sorry..your strawman set his own self on fire:razz:. :yay:

Not at all. I am one of the forum spelling nazi's. You've been around long enough to know that.

I read that. They were conducting an investigation. The guy started screaming warrant and 4th closed the door on them. They then had reasonable suspicion.

You know who's also suspicious of people who start talking about the Constitution and the rights contained therein?

Eric Holder.

And that's how it should happen. Again, I'm not saying all cops do this, or are bad, but it does happen, we all know this. Things happen, and often the police can't keep up with the sheer amount of laws we have. Like people being arrested for filming police, or open carrying. That's one thing. Another thing is completely biasing the police report to make the bad guy seem, well, worse. We can all hope, and wish they all get caught, but often times, it takes citizens with cameras to get them caught. Police are given benefit of the doubt most times, and a camera is the best set of un-biased eyes anyone can have in a case.

I will say that almost all the times I've had a run-in with officers, it's been nothing but respectful, and simple. Only twice has there been any friction, if you want to call it that.

1). I'm between 2 cars, one in front, one behind. Going north on 4. After crusing for awhile, I notice a SUV pacing the pack. I make sure I'm doing 60mph (I can see the LED lights in his grill), next thing you know, he flips the lights on, and cuts the car behind me off, pulls me over. I get a ticket for doing 80mph, and I'm on my way.

Court day comes, and the judge askes the cop if he used laser, or radar. Cops says "radar". I ask the cop, "If you're using radar, how can you say for sure I was the one supposedly doing 80mph? I was between 2 other cars, and you were behind us"? Judge says, "None of that here, 1 point, and pay your fine". I thought it was innocent until proven guilty, and the cop should have had to prove he clocked me, not me having to prove that I wasn't speeding.

Why would a judge lie or not do their job? Isn't that what you said in a previous post? It's easy for you to assume the cops are bad but not the judge. Were you doing 80? I would guess yes. But you are trying to beat the system. Glad you got the point, you deserved it!

Not really a big deal, more of a bummer.

2). Coming off a road onto Rt.4 north. I turn right, and I see a cop that was in the left hand turning lane pull out, and pull me over. First thing he says when he walks up is "Do you have problems with the Calvert County Police Department?", "What? No.", I said. He says "Well, you're not displaying your front tag properly". I had just got the car, and it didn't have a front tag holder, so my tag was between my dash, and windshield. He gave me a warning, and we were on our way.

For those of you that think I'm a cop hater, that was for you. I'm far from a cop hater. What I hate, is people with power, that abise that power. I gurantee, any good cop, doesn't have to worry about that.

What does abise mean?

Yea, the judge can pull up your complete history with one click.

My DC cop friend said the same thing. He said "You guys are getting screwed with traffic tickets down here". I guess it's different when you work in a town/city with REAL crime. I'm sure the cameras in DC help also :lol:

The first breakdown is when people start not caring about "little crime". That's when everything turns into big crime. Look at New York City. When they began to enforce minor crimes, major crimes went down.

The first breakdown is when people start not caring about "little infringements". That's when everything turns into big infringements.
I could fix the first two sentences, but since we're the only ones with our constitution I didn't have an example for the remainder.

Why would a judge lie or not do their job? Isn't that what you said in a previous post? It's easy for you to assume the cops are bad but not the judge. Were you doing 80? I would guess yes. But you are trying to beat the system. Glad you got the point, you deserved it!
laziness would be my guess, but I attribute that excuse to a whole lot of people.

I could fix the first two sentences, but since we're the only ones with our constitution I didn't have an example for the remainder.

How is enforcing the law infringing? I don't know why you feel officers enforcing crime is infringing on others. If you don't like the law, run for office and change things, elect other people to office to change things or get out.

Originally Posted by baja28
the cops didn't jst show up at his door willy nilly. Someone called them and they have to check the welfare when called to a domestic.

when someone starts screaming warrant & 4th amendment, i immediately suspect they have something to hide.

Then why would they knock on his door at 12:30am? gtfo.Did I call it or what!?!?! :killingme :high5:


You know who's also suspicious of people who start talking about the Constitution and the rights contained therein?

Eric Holder.Oh no you di'ent just compare me to EH!!! :boxing:

I gotta give Chris credit. When a thread doesn't go his way, he keeps posting away making himself look more like a fool but damn my day went quick.

Thank pal! :high5:

The only question i have is, was this the address of the complaint called in or not, i could not get this out of here from the the way the thread has gone , from the OP's post. If my neighbor has a domestic dispute, i personally don't want to see this kind of response from the police at my front door if the complaint was called in for a different address than mine.. The complaint was either called in against my address or it wasn't. PS have not read all 19 pages of responses, if this has already been resolved please feel free to shoot me. :faint:

If only I had time to post while at work...wow. How many trolls on this thread? I skimmed quickly and found at least 3. Anybody else got a count?

How is enforcing the law infringing? I don't know why you feel officers enforcing crime is infringing on others. If you don't like the law, run for office and change things, elect other people to office to change things or get out.

There was no 911 call to the house, no noises coming from the house, no neighbor complaints (that night) of smells or shots, in short no reason to search his house except a deputy who wanted to do it, that IS infringing on his rights. As for "If I don't like the law..." there's a court system that's purpose is to keep him (the deputy) in check, so running for office or getting out isn't required.

There was no 911 call to the house, no noises coming from the house, no neighbor complaints (that night) of smells or shots, in short no reason to search his house except a deputy who wanted to do it, that IS infringing on his rights. As for "If I don't like the law..." there's a court system that's purpose is to keep him (the deputy) in check, so running for office or getting out isn't required.He did not search the house.

I understand the feeling of intrusion, rights infringement, or being inconvenienced; but I would much rather see the police respond, than not. I would rather them go to the wrong house because something is going on somewhere on the street; because, everyone is better off for the police presence. You have the right to place a complaint to law enforcement, if you have a problem in how the call was handled. Suing is quite ridiculous, unless it is believed law enforcement acted criminally. I, also, do not understand the stories of innocent people and pets being shot; but our situtation would be much worse if there was no law enforcement to protect us. :yikes:

He did not search the house.

Sorry that was hyperbole, he entered the residence against the expressed wishes of the homeowner and proceeded to bully him in to waking his family to satisfy his own curiosity.

Sorry that was hyperbole, he entered the residence against the expressed wishes of the homeowner and proceeded to bully him in to waking his family to satisfy his own curiosity.Not to be argumentative... :killingme .... but he still didn't enter unless I missed it. He stuck his foot in the door then he peered in when the man went to wake the wife & kids.

I understand the feeling of intrusion, rights infringement, or being inconvenienced; but I would much rather see the police respond, than not. I would rather them go to the wrong house because something is going on somewhere on the street; because, everyone is better off for the police presence. You have the right to place a complaint to law enforcement, if you have a problem in how the call was handled. Suing is quite ridiculous, unless it is believed law enforcement acted criminally. I, also, do not understand the stories of innocent people and pets being shot; but our situtation would be much worse if there was no law enforcement to protect us. :yikes:

You're in favor of it until it's your house that get's violated. A badge doesn't entitle us to circumvent the law (contrary to what many fellow officers believe)

Not to be argumentative... :killingme .... but he still didn't enter unless I missed it. He stuck his foot in the door then he peered in when the man went to wake the wife & kids.

If anyone besides the police sticks their foot in the door while you're closing them out, they are technically breaking and entering and trespassing.

What does abise mean?

Chris0nllyn always picks up the largest car in the pack. So, if you were the largest vehicle out of the 3 then chances are you may have been going a bit faster then you thought. Honestly, there are way too many speeders and law breakers out there for us to lie and accuse someone of breaking the law who wasn't. Granted I don't know your situation but just giving an unbiased perspective.

You're in favor of it until it's your house that get's violated. A badge doesn't entitle us to circumvent the law (contrary to what many fellow officers believe)

I have had officers come to my house because there was suspicious activity in my area, even when my children were not involved. I had a alot of trouble with one of my children at one time, as well as, with a couple other children in my neighborhood. I am telling you I don't mind if law enforcement comes to my house by mistake, and I will always invite them in. I may have a more than normal connection, and respect for law enforcement. That is how I feel, but thanks for your input.

If anyone besides the police sticks their foot in the door while you're closing them out, they are technically breaking and entering and trespassing.Right, anyone besides the police. The police aren't if they are checking the welfare of an occupant.

If the police were never called to to that road and did this I would agree with Chris but that isn't the case.

And based on this douche's criminal history, I like that they are keeping an eye on him.

Cops rang my doorbell at 11pm a bunch of years ago.

Ma'am, we're checking out some vandalism in the neighborhood. Do you have a teenage son in the house?
Yes, I do.
Is he home?
I hope so. Come on in.

Went down and checked, son was fast asleep and not happy for me to wake him up, Cops thanked me for my time, I wished them luck in catching the vandal, and everyone went back about their business.

I fail to understand why some people feel the need to "fight the power" and get stupid instead of simply cooperate.

I read most of the 20 pages prior to posting, hopfully I'm not repeating.

Seriously, if that's MY son or daughter or grandkids living in that house, I'd be glad the cops checked. It sounds like someone doing their job - we often hear about kids who have slipped through the cracks, beaten to death or badly abused because no one did their due diligence in ensuring that a report was correct, and then we ask "how did this happen, when people reported that they thought there was a problem?".

The real shame here is that there are lawyers who will pursue this sort of case - as if the family will ever see any money from the case. It'll all go to the lawyers.

Cops rang my doorbell at 11pm a bunch of years ago.

Ma'am, we're checking out some vandalism in the neighborhood. Do you have a teenage son in the house?
Yes, I do.
Is he home?
I hope so. Come on in.

Went down and checked, son was fast asleep and not happy for me to wake him up, Cops thanked me for my time, I wished them luck in catching the vandal, and everyone went back about their business.

I fail to understand why some people feel the need to "fight the power" and get stupid instead of simply cooperate.
Because don't you know? We're a police state!! :jameo:

Cops rang my doorbell at 11pm a bunch of years ago.

Ma'am, we're checking out some vandalism in the neighborhood. Do you have a teenage son in the house?
Yes, I do.
Is he home?
I hope so. Come on in.

Went down and checked, son was fast asleep and not happy for me to wake him up, Cops thanked me for my time, I wished them luck in catching the vandal, and everyone went back about their business.

I fail to understand why some people feel the need to "fight the power" and get stupid instead of simply cooperate.
In this case you've invited him in, if he would have stuck his foot in the door and ordered you to produce him now would you feel any different? You personally probably would because you don't mind giving up your rights for the feeling of security, there are a lot of us though that will stand up for our rights. Once they are given up, you're not going to get them back.

When an officer comes to your house and asks to simply speak to you and you immediately refuse and say you need a search warrant - doesn't that automatically put you at a very high level of suspicion that you are hiding something? You continue to tell the Officer that he can not speak to anyone within that home "without a warrant" puts the Officer's on high alert that the safety of the people in that house are at risk. Probable Cause....

There was no 911 call to the house, no noises coming from the house, no neighbor complaints (that night) of smells or shots, in short no reason to search his house except a deputy who wanted to do it, that IS infringing on his rights. As for "If I don't like the law..." there's a court system that's purpose is to keep him (the deputy) in check, so running for office or getting out isn't required.

There was a call, and he didn't search the house, and it was a trooper.

If anyone besides the police sticks their foot in the door while you're closing them out, they are technically breaking and entering and trespassing.

No they are not. They are technically trespassing. If you are going to cite the law, make sure you are doing it correctly. For him to "break" and enter, he would have had to push the door open.

When an officer comes to your house and asks to simply speak to you and you immediately refuse and say you need a search warrant - doesn't that automatically put you at a very high level of suspicion that you are hiding something? You continue to tell the Officer that he can not speak to anyone within that home "without a warrant" puts the Officer's on high alert that the safety of the people in that house are at risk. Probable Cause....

I would say no. But if the officer tells you he is investigating a domestic disturbance call, and asks to see your other half and you resist that, then I would say you are at a high level of suspicion. Police officers respect the right of homeowners, but there is a balance when there is an exegency in protecting people's lives.

When an officer comes to your house and asks to simply speak to you and you immediately refuse and say you need a search warrant - doesn't that automatically put you at a very high level of suspicion that you are hiding something? You continue to tell the Officer that he can not speak to anyone within that home "without a warrant" puts the Officer's on high alert that the safety of the people in that house are at risk. Probable Cause.... No, it's you insisting that they respect your constitutional rights. If they had probable cause they could get a search warrant but a judge is not going to use "they refused to let me in" as a probable cause, or at least they shouldn't

There was a call, and he didn't search the house, and it was a trooper.
The minute the door was opened the officer was searching the house. If for nothing else, his safety. So let's not pretend there was not search because the trooper didn't physically touch things.

By involing your constituional rights you are not guilty, you are presumed innocent, and you are not accusing the officer of wrong doing. The constitution was established to protect the citizens from unlawful searches.

Would you want the cops to kick in your door because the a neighbor called in a complaint. A neighbor who it turns out has a grudge against you. Is that accusation probable cause? We don't want law enforcement to be manipulated as a tool to harrass citizens for personal or political reasons.
Frustrating as it might be, it's why the constitution was written the way it was.

And while it may never happen to you because you are a stand up law and order type, and our local officials are beyond reproach, it does happen.

There was a call, and he didn't search the house, and it was a trooper.
Are you going by the article or by some other source, because the article is quite clear "he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address". I've already admitted to exagerating the word search, and trooper / deputy / police I use the words interchangeably.

No they are not. They are technically trespassing. If you are going to cite the law, make sure you are doing it correctly. For him to "break" and enter, he would have had to push the door open.
You're going to have to cite a source to make me believe you.

Are you going by the article or by some other source, because the article is quite clear "he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address". I've already admitted to exagerating the word search, and trooper / deputy / police I use the words interchangeably.

Yes, i'm going by information that tells both sides of the story.

No, it's you insisting that they respect your constitutional rights. If they had probable cause they could get a search warrant but a judge is not going to use "they refused to let me in" as a probable cause, or at least they shouldn't


The minute the door was opened the officer was searching the house. If for nothing else, his safety. So let's not pretend there was not search because the trooper didn't physically touch things.

So every person who stands at your doors threshold is searching your house? That to me is simply crazy talk.

By invoking your constituional rights you are not guilty, you are presumed innocent, and you are not accusing the officer of wrong doing. The constitution was established to protect the citizens from unlawful searches.

There's no question about that, but it doesn't preven the officers from continuing to do their job.

Would you want the cops to kick in your door because the a neighbor called in a complaint. A neighbor who it turns out has a grudge against you. Is that accusation probable cause? We don't want law enforcement to be manipulated as a tool to harrass citizens for personal or political reasons.
Frustrating as it might be, it's why the constitution was written the way it was.

I would tell the officers there was no problem. I would not slam the door in their face. I would let them see any of my family members to ensure they were safe. If it were my daughter living at that house and my son-in-law acted the way this man did I would want the officers to do exactly what they did.

And while it may never happen to you because you are a stand up law and order type, and our local officials are beyond reproach, it does happen.

What happens?

Yes, i'm going by information that tells both sides of the story.
Post it then so we can close this one.

You're going to have to cite a source to make me believe you.

The division commander for some of the officers on the scene. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

In this case you've invited him in, if he would have stuck his foot in the door and ordered you to produce him now would you feel any different? You personally probably would because you don't mind giving up your rights for the feeling of security, there are a lot of us though that will stand up for our rights. Once they are given up, you're not going to get them back.

Merlin, pay attention. He didn't *have* to stick his foot in the door and order me to do anything. I voluntarily cooperated right off the bat. That's what you do when cops come to your door and you have nothing to hide - you cooperate.

Merlin, pay attention. He didn't *have* to stick his foot in the door and order me to do anything. I voluntarily cooperated right off the bat. That's what you do when cops come to your door and you have nothing to hide - you cooperate.


Prettt much the point I was trying to make. This guy created this himself. All he needed to do was "cooperate" with the request of the officer's. He created the aura of suspicion and continued to feed into it

This incident does not meet the definition of Burglary. While an element of Burglary - Breaking & Entering (a house, storehouse, research facility etc) is to enter over a fence, or break the plane real or imaginary by entering through a door or window of the structure, this simply is not a burglary.

The law enforcement officers were there for a legitimate reason, a call for service, investigating a domestic violence incident. There was a complaint called in according to the news article, meaning that the police didn't dig or make this up on their own, somewhere in the vicinity there is a live real 3rd party witness who is concerned for the welfare of all occupants of the target apartment. Someone clearly heard arguing or other sounds that would indicate that the occupants of that residence were involved in an arguement or physical altercation. They were so concerned, they called 911 and requested that the police investigate. Exigency is shown in this case, because obtaining a search warrant would require more time and effort and resources, and SCOTUS does recognize the need of exigency and the TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. Obtaining a search warrant would give the offending party inside of the house more time to torture, abuse, kill, cover up evidence of any domestic violence incident that is occurring. The fact that they put their foot in the door was probably done because the irrate man who answered the door clearly may have been attempting to close it. I don't see why an officer would put himself into the "fatal funnel" unless the guy at the door was attempting to close it, and further drag this incident out.

There are many types of searches. A search for articles, such as evidences of a crime or contraband (illegal weapons, narcotics etc). There are searches for people. In any case, even a SEARCH for PEOPLE here was not conducted, because the wife and kids voluntarily appeared to the law enforcement officer in plain view. The trooper was looking around the room. It never said that the officer was searching about the room, or walking throughout his house. That would be a search. Standing in the doorway of a residence is not a search. The officer looking around the room in this case, for threats to his personal safety, (weapons, contraband, guns, bombs, knives, evidence of crimes or that a fight had occured). Not allowing the irrate occupant to close the door was clearly within the right of the officer in this case because of the fact that he was there investigating a legitimate complaint, a domestic disturbance.

I agree that law enforcement should not be used as a tool to harass. Most agencies realize this, and are trained in this. For example, if someone keeps calling in a loud party and after the 2nd call there is no party at the residence, more than often, officers will not go out to that address to investigate further. Most agencies don't have the time, the manpower, or simply have better things to do than to to continue going to the same residence based on bogus information and simply will not continue to do that. I further don't feel that the police are "harassing him" because of the fact that he has failed to prove a HISTORY of harassment. I don't think MSP or CCSO has patrol cars parked at the end of his driveway waiting for him to leave and return and pulling him over time and time again for the slightest infractions and citing him. They don't have the time or the want to do so. They could probably care less about him.

Merlin, pay attention. He didn't *have* to stick his foot in the door and order me to do anything. I voluntarily cooperated right off the bat. That's what you do when cops come to your door and you have nothing to hide - you cooperate.
I'm going to invoke Godwins law so I can quit this thread, it seems like the same things keep getting said and neither side really cares that much anymore.


That's what you do when cops come to your door and you have nothing to hide - you cooperate.

That's what the Jews said when the Nazi's came knocking. :lalala:

Chris is pathetic, he has always tried to blame the cops on every story he gets the chance.

Who are you?

What happens?

Police have this thing called the plain view doctrine, and it "allows an officer to seize – without a warrant – evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation".

Merlin, pay attention. He didn't *have* to stick his foot in the door and order me to do anything. I voluntarily cooperated right off the bat. That's what you do when cops come to your door and you have nothing to hide - you cooperate.

That's your decision.

Others just don't want police in their house.

Nothing about this entire complaint couldn't have been done outside, on the front porch. Instead, the cops supposedly held the door open, then came inside when the guy went upstairs.

From the story:
According to the complaint, Merkelson “became louder and belligerent” and yelled for Harold Hodge to get his wife. Harold Hodge said he “surrender[ed] out of great fear and great shock and humiliation” and walked toward the staircase and called his wife out of bed. When he looked back, Harold Hodge said Merkelson was pushing his front door open and looking around inside the home

I'm going to invoke Godwins law so I can quit this thread, it seems like the same things keep getting said and neither side really cares that much anymore.


That's what the Jews said when the Nazi's came knocking. :lalala:

Now you've jumped the fridge. You're equating police responding to a call with Nazis? Really?

I'm going to invoke Godwins law so I can quit this thread, it seems like the same things keep getting said and neither side really cares that much anymore.


That's what the Jews said when the Nazi's came knocking. :lalala:

While I disagree with your opinion, I must say that this is an excellent way to invoke Godwin! :yay:

The minute the door was opened the officer was searching the house. If for nothing else, his safety. So let's not pretend there was not search because the trooper didn't physically touch things.

By involing your constituional rights you are not guilty, you are presumed innocent, and you are not accusing the officer of wrong doing. The constitution was established to protect the citizens from unlawful searches.

Would you want the cops to kick in your door because the a neighbor called in a complaint. A neighbor who it turns out has a grudge against you. Is that accusation probable cause? We don't want law enforcement to be manipulated as a tool to harrass citizens for personal or political reasons.
Frustrating as it might be, it's why the constitution was written the way it was.

And while it may never happen to you because you are a stand up law and order type, and our local officials are beyond reproach, it does happen.You're batsh!t crazy! :killingme So he's searching the house from the door way. Riiiighttttt!!! Maybe in your koo koo world.

How did we go from asking questions to kicking in a door?? What other crazy things happen in your bizzaro world article? :crazy:

Now you've jumped the fridge. You're equating police responding to a call with Nazis? Really?

Read for comprehension. Don't pull a Larry and go all ape s**t without reading the whole post.

In this case you've invited him in, if he would have stuck his foot in the door and ordered you to produce him now would you feel any different? You personally probably would because you don't mind giving up your rights for the feeling of security, there are a lot of us though that will stand up for our rights. Once they are given up, you're not going to get them back.Seriously Merl..... how many times have you been harassed by the police for no reason whatsoever?? I have a record longer than my arm and not once, ever did they harass me. Not once! Nor have they harassed me since.

I think some may be forgetting a few things.

1). The cops said they were investigating something at another address. If the cop had come there and said "I have a compliant for this address" it's one thing. According to the article, He said a man identified himself as MSP Cpl. Costella and said he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address. Harold Hodge told Costella the address was not his and Costella then allegedly asked if he heard any yelling or screaming. Harold Hodge said he did not and closed the door. What's wrong about that? He answered the door, told the cops it wasn't his address, and that was that. The cops are the ones who showed back up minutes later, About three minutes later, Harold Hodge said he heard “loud bangs or poundings” on his front door and became fearful, according to the complaint. He opened his front door and “an unknown male,” later identified as Tfc. Merkelson, asked him if he could come outside. Harold Hodge said no and Merkelson asked to come inside. Harold Hodge said he could not come inside without a warrant and, the lawsuit alleges, Merkelson said he did not need a warrant because he was investigating a domestic dispute and put his foot between the door and the doorframe, “across the threshold” of the Hodges’ home.

2). Just because YOU would happily let the cops in, doesn't mean this man has to do the same. He has every right to not allow them in his house.

3). At the end of it all, the cops got what they wanted. They talked to the wife, and kids, everyone was hunky-dory, and that was that.

You're batsh!t crazy! :killingme So he's searching the house from the door way. Riiiighttttt!!! Maybe in your koo koo world.

How did we go from asking questions to kicking in a door?? What other crazy things happen in your bizzaro world article? :crazy:

Look back to my post on the plain view doctrine.

You're naive if you think cops will just stand at the front door, and not look inside.

Just look at this story:
Tpr. Koock responded to the 20000 block of Hermanville Road in Lexington Park for a check welfare. Upon arrival, Tpr. Koock observed clothes lying outside the residence. Spicer advised they were his clothes. Tpr. Koock observed in plain view a CDS smoking device with marijuana and a cellophane baggie containing two capsules of Marinole 10mg (liquid marijuana).

Spicer was placed under arrest and transported to the St. Mary’s County Detention Center where he was held pending a bond review with the District Court Commissioner.

Police Checking Welfare of Man Find Liquid Marijuana - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/12692)

Instead, the cops supposedly held the door open, then came inside when the guy went upstairs.

From the story:Will you ever stop making stuff up?? Where in that article including the excerpt you posted does it say the police entered the house? Where?

I find it amusing, and almost scarey that most of you jump on the 1st Amendment when the Chic-Fil-A CEO said he stood for traditional marriage. You jump on the 2nd Amendment when anyone wants to limit guns, but when a man invokes his 4th Amendment right, and doesn't want the police in his home, suddenly he's a criminal? Suddenly he's got something to hide?

Remember the PIPA/CISPA crap that tried getting passed a few months ago? Others were crying 4th Amendment then, but not now?

Back in the day there was this little thing called the writ of assistance, and it gave officers of the crown free reign to come in and search for what ever they would want, with or with out your knowledge, and if you refused to cooperate then your day just got worse. James Otis, who was a lawyer at the time, argued that there should be specifics in what or whom should be searched and where. Long story short, his arguments helped to form the 4th Amendment.

It seems most of you only care about those rights that you agree with.

Ok so a quick run the Maryland Judiciary Case Search shows Harold Hodge past as:

Disorderly conduct
Resisting Arrest
Peace Order against him
Assault
Obtructing or Hindering an Officer
Breaking and Entering
Battery
Resisting Arrest again

he also filed Harrasment charges and Battery charges against someone else

so what makes him any different than the Officers??

Will you ever stop making stuff up?? Where in that article including the excerpt you posted does it say the police entered the house? Where?

He pushed the door open, and was looking around inside. That's considered inside his home.

Riddle me this, the cop said he didn't need a warrant to come inside because he was investigating. Why didn't he just walk inside? I mean, supposedly he had every right to, and didn't need a warrant. Why not just barge inside?

Trespassing:
In modern law the word trespass is used most commonly to describe the intentional and wrongful invasion of another's real property. An action for trespass can be maintained by the owner or anyone else who has a lawful right to occupy the real property, such as the owner of an apartment building, a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family. The action can be maintained against anyone who interferes with the right of ownership or possession, whether the invasion is by a person or by something that a person has set in motion. For example, a hunter who enters fields where hunting is forbidden is a trespasser, and so is a company that throws rocks onto neighboring land when it is blasting.

Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing wrongful acts after entry. For example, a mail carrier has a privilege to walk up the sidewalk at a private home but is not entitled to go through the front door. A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass. Moreover, an intruder cannot defend himself in a trespass action by showing that the plaintiff did not have a completely valid legal right to the property. The reason for all of these rules is that the action of trespass exists to prevent breaches of the peace by protecting the quiet possession of real property.

In a trespass action, the plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant intended to trespass but only that she intended to do whatever caused the trespass. It is no excuse that the trespasser mistakenly believed that she was not doing wrong or that she did not understand the wrong. A child can be a trespasser, as can a person who thought that she was on her own land.

so what makes him any different than the Officers??

He doesn't wear a badge.

...

Look back to my post on the plain view doctrine.

You're naive if you think cops will just stand at the front door, and not look inside.

Just look at this story:

Police Checking Welfare of Man Find Liquid Marijuana - Southern Maryland News, Charles County, Calvert County and St. Mary's County News (http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/12692)So what!?!?! JFC!!! No law says they cannot look!! Looking and searching are two different things!

And as for your link, again, so f*cking what?!?!?! The clothes were outside and the dope was in plain sight!! How about obeying the friggin law and you won't get your ass arrested!!

You should move to another country since it's so effing horrible here. :yay:

He pushed the door open, and was looking around inside. That's considered inside his home.

Riddle me this, the cop said he didn't need a warrant to come inside because he was investigating. Why didn't he just walk inside? I mean, supposedly he had every right to, and didn't need a warrant. Why not just barge inside?
No Chris, in your bizzaro head that's considered in his home. In the real world, it's called looking inside from the door. I can't wait to see what rule you make up next. :lmao:

You riddle me this: So which is it?? He was inside or he wasn't. You get kookier with every post. :crazy:

So what!?!?! JFC!!! No law says they cannot look!! Looking and searching are two different things!

And as for your link, again, so f*cking what?!?!?! The clothes were outside and the dope was in plain sight!! How about obeying the friggin law and you won't get your ass arrested!!

You should move to another country since it's so effing horrible here. :yay:

Are you seriously this dense?

IF THEY'RE LOOKING IN THE HOUSE, ANYTHING THEY SEE CAN BE USED TO LOCK YOU UP!!!!

No one ever said they can not look, but as soon as they are allowed in your home, anything they find, they can lock you up for, and don't need a warrant.

You should read "Three Felonies a Day".
Silverglate writes, “it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average busy professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, takes care of personal and family obligations and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she likely committed several Federal crimes that day.” Why?

The answer lies in the huge volume of Federal criminal laws which are broad and impossibly vague. They have become dangerously disconnected from English common law tradition.

There is a crime for all of us. Currently there are 4,450 listed criminal offenses. These listed Federal offenses have exploded well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, giving Federal prosecutors thousands of additional vague, complex and technical prohibitions removed from congressional authority or any authority but the Federal prosecutors themselves.


There are so many laws out there that I bet you've broken the law, and didn't even know it.

No Chris, in your bizzaro head that's considered in his home. In the real world, it's called looking inside from the door. I can't wait to see what rule you make up next. :lmao:

You riddle me this: So which is it?? He was inside or he wasn't. You get kookier with every post. :crazy:

Was his foot past the threshold of the door? Yes or no?

This man has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home, it's hard to do if a cop has his foot in the door not allowing you to close it.

Here's a question. If a burglar was breaking into your home, would you wait until he was fully inside, or with his foot on the threshold? And before you spout off nonsense, I'm not comparing police to robbers. I'm mearly asking a hypothetical question to see if your answer changes with who is at the door.

The police may be able to come into your home or office if you have opened those places to the public — but you can also ask them to leave, just as if they were any other members of the public. If they don’t have a warrant, or don’t qualify for any of the warrant exceptions, they have no more right to stay once you’ve asked them to leave than any other trespasser.

You keep posting away pal. It must really suck to be you and so worried about the police all of the time. Glad I'm sane. Let us know when the comet is coming to pick you up. :killingme

You keep posting away pal. It must really suck to be you and so worried about the police all of the time. Glad I'm sane. Let us know when the comet is coming to pick you up. :killingme

Yeah, and keep caring less and less about our rights. You'll miss them when they're gone.

Was his foot past the threshold of the door? Yes or no?

This man has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home, it's hard to do if a cop has his foot in the door not allowing you to close it.

Here's a question. If a burglar was breaking into your home, would you wait until he was fully inside, or with his foot on the threshold? And before you spout off nonsense, I'm not comparing police to robbers. I'm mearly asking a hypothetical question to see if your answer changes with who is at the door.

The police may be able to come into your home or office if you have opened those places to the public — but you can also ask them to leave, just as if they were any other members of the public. If they don’t have a warrant, or don’t qualify for any of the warrant exceptions, they have no more right to stay once you’ve asked them to leave than any other trespasser.

This has been a long and arduous task reading these last 24 pages then to come to this. It is this post that makes me realize that not only do you have great disdain for the people who do good work in this country, but you also have zero knowledge as to how our system of laws are applied.

This has been a long and arduous task reading these last 24 pages then to come to this. It is this post that makes me realize that not only do you have great disdain for the people who do good work in this country, but you also have zero knowledge as to how our system of laws are applied.

Really? Enlighten me as to what about my post was wrong.

I think some may be forgetting a few things.

1). The cops said they were investigating something at another address. If the cop had come there and said "I have a compliant for this address" it's one thing. According to the article, He said a man identified himself as MSP Cpl. Costella and said he was responding to a call for a domestic disturbance at another Sark Court address. Harold Hodge told Costella the address was not his and Costella then allegedly asked if he heard any yelling or screaming. Harold Hodge said he did not and closed the door. What's wrong about that? He answered the door, told the cops it wasn't his address, and that was that. The cops are the ones who showed back up minutes later, About three minutes later, Harold Hodge said he heard “loud bangs or poundings” on his front door and became fearful, according to the complaint. He opened his front door and “an unknown male,” later identified as Tfc. Merkelson, asked him if he could come outside. Harold Hodge said no and Merkelson asked to come inside. Harold Hodge said he could not come inside without a warrant and, the lawsuit alleges, Merkelson said he did not need a warrant because he was investigating a domestic dispute and put his foot between the door and the doorframe, “across the threshold” of the Hodges’ home.

2). Just because YOU would happily let the cops in, doesn't mean this man has to do the same. He has every right to not allow them in his house.

3). At the end of it all, the cops got what they wanted. They talked to the wife, and kids, everyone was hunky-dory, and that was that.

Just thought I should bring that back to the front of the issues. It seems you people don't mind jumping down my throat, and insist that I'm some sort of cop hater for wanting to stand up for the rights we have as Americans.

Again, I hope you don't miss the rights you piss away in the name of safety and security.

Hope you all have a great day.

Again, I hope you don't miss the rights you piss away in the name of safety and security.

I will certainly not miss peoples' "right" to be a combative ####head who won't cooperate with law enforcement when they show up for a simple investigation and ask a few questions. I will also not miss the "right" to file frivolous lawsuits claiming you have been harassed and were in fear for your life after you acted like a combative ####head to cops who were simply asking questions.

They can take those "rights" away this second and I will throw a party to celebrate.

It seems you have confused who's taking the rights away. There are a large number of people who would agree that civil rights have gotten better in this country. We don't have public lynchings anymore, theres no more segregation, women have more rights, people have the right to consume alcohol etc.

However, in the past few decades, most would agree that we are headed in another direction. Drones flying overhead with spy cameras every hour, GPS trackers, cellphone wiretaps. The Government has created a no fly list but that still doesn't stop you from taking flight lessons. State Police knocking on doors because citizens are purchasing ammunition. They are always trying to ban guns, limit speech, limit peaceful protests, a constant and evermore encroachment on citizens rights. Taking away the rights of those who work, and giving more to those who don't, those who aren't even citizens. They take away more in taxes out of the paycheck you work for every week. This I agree with. I disagree that its the police that are responsible for taking away your rights. I don't think that despite the fact that they are dressed in brown, the Maryland State Police aspire to become much like the gestapo and the Calvert County Sheriff's Office wishes to become like the secret police.

However what I do believe, its POLITICIANS who are doing this. Its the SCOTUS, and other legislatures. Its the president doing these things. The 3 branches of government who are taking away these "rights" and making more "laws." They are also attempting to keep up with the times. The founding fathers had no idea that years ago that something like the internet would exist and some nutjob would be soliciting small children on there to rape. The founding fathers had no idea that people would run financial criminal scams and diobolical schemes that would cheat millions of americans out of their hard earned cash. The founding fathers didn't think about thousands of illegal immigrants coming to the country illegally and taxing our infrastructure to its limits. They founding fathers didn't foresee violent transnational street gangs battling each other for turf on our nations inner city streets. And they certainly didn't forsee religious organizations grouping together and flying aircraft into skyscrapers. I think that with the advent of some of these things, politicians, our law system and how our country is run has attempted to grapple with these ongoing social issues and how we resolve them as a society will remain to be seen. However, at the end of the day, the police are only enforcing laws and policies created by politicians that the citizens elected to power.

XSgR4ujCBWA&feature=related

Randomly Stopped and Searched for WMD's in North Texas! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSgR4ujCBWA&feature=related)

It's my story and I'll spin it anyway I wanna.

A. I stopped at the 5:00 mark when he said he was just randomly chosen and beaten and tased by police. Sure he was. :killingme

B. Nothing you post has any credence because you fail to post all of the information. Your spin no longer works here.

Chris, you should be more careful about picking the stories you use to spread your hate of police. The "victim" in this case has quite a record of being a "victim" of this type of thing.

He sued Calvert, St. Mary's, and the state for $144,000,000 for "violating his rights" when police with a warrant entered his house to look for his brother, a wanted bank robber. He lost.

He sued CCPS for $77,000 and lost.

He sued Calvert County because they made him take his belt off to pass through the court house metal detector, and for not letting him bring his cell phone into the court house. Once again, he lost.

Your arguments have gotten so weak it is impossible for you to have any credibility.

XSgR4ujCBWA&feature=related

Randomly Stopped and Searched for WMD's in North Texas! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSgR4ujCBWA&feature=related)

I don't think this supports your argument. This "pastor" sounds like a jerk off. He simply asked the guy a question.

A. I stopped at the 5:00 mark when he said he was just randomly chosen and beaten and tased by police. Sure he was. :killingme

B. Nothing you post has any credence because you fail to post all of the information. Your spin no longer works here.

Oh really? You should try doing some of your own research, or hell, even a simple google search before you try and make me sound like an idiot.

Pastor acquitted in Interstate 8 checkpoint incident, anderson, charges, patrol - News - YumaSun (http://www.yumasun.com/articles/anderson-63132-charges-patrol.html)

Steven Anderson, who is minister of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, was found not guilty Friday afternoon after a two-day trial on charges of obstructing a highway and failure to obey instructions of a law enforcement officer.

“I was exercising my Constitutional rights. I knew they wouldn't find anything and they didn't,” Anderson told the Yuma Sun. “It is an unconstitutional checkpoint and I basically refused a warrantless search of my vehicle.”

Those stupid rights again....getting in the way.

You want all the info? It gets really good when the border patrol agent gets caught in a bold faced lie.(See part 4)

OO8vo8qkOKI
Pt 1 of 5 Pastor Anderson Full Trial (12/16/09) Border Patrol Checkpoint - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO8vo8qkOKI)

7c6Kh30vVeA&feature=relmfu
Pt 2 of 5 Pastor Anderson Full Trial (12/16/09) Border Patrol Checkpoint - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c6Kh30vVeA&feature=relmfu)

kdC7c9iWdmM&feature=relmfu
Pt 3 of 5 Pastor Anderson Full Trial (12/16/09) Border Patrol Checkpoint - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdC7c9iWdmM&feature=relmfu)

htCW08DtoicAI&feature=relmfu
Pt 4 of 5 Pastor Anderson Full Trial (12/16/09) Border Patrol Checkpoint - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW08DtoicAI&feature=relmfu)

VT9KHgHBk3s&feature=relmfu
Pt 5 of 5 Pastor Anderson Full Trial (12/16/09) Border Patrol Checkpoint - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT9KHgHBk3s&feature=relmfu)

Chris, you should be more careful about picking the stories you use to spread your hate of police. The "victim" in this case has quite a record of being a "victim" of this type of thing.

He sued Calvert, St. Mary's, and the state for $144,000,000 for "violating his rights" when police with a warrant entered his house to look for his brother, a wanted bank robber. He lost.

He sued CCPS for $77,000 and lost.

He sued Calvert County because they made him take his belt off to pass through the court house metal detector, and for not letting him bring his cell phone into the court house. Once again, he lost.

Your arguments have gotten so weak it is impossible for you to have any credibility.

What does it matter who this guy is? what does it matter what he did in the past? Do rights change, or go away based on a criminal history?

The entire story I posted about pastor Anderson above is along the same lines. Anderson was exercising his rights, cops didn't like it, tased him, and locked him up. For what? Obviously nothing, because he was aquitted of all charges. We need more people like him, and people who don't have a problem standing up to the police, and their actions.

I'm not this guy's lawyer, so I personally don't care. What I care about is the shockingly large amount of people who only care about the rights that affect them. They could care less about them unless they need them, or it fits their agenda.

Give the government an inch, and they'll take a mile.

No one has yet to comment on the post I made, twice.

Randomly Stopped and Searched for WMD's in North Texas!

This whole post is a lie! The guy wasn't randomly stopped he was stopped for a traffic violation. He was never searched at all! The officer asked him some questions, and the guy refused to answer them. The officer didn't make the guy answer, didn't threaten him or do ANYTHING wrong! He was courteous to someone who was less than courteous to him!