Deputies transgressions caught on videotape

This is the reaction of a Facebook Friend of mine who, for obvious reasons, prefers to remain Anonymous. Let’s call it a dissenting opinion on Dan’s piece:

A provocative report by an “independent investigative” TV reporter in San Luis Obispo examines a 2008 sheriff’s response to a “shots fired” call in the rural part of the community, which according to the footage edited together by this reporter, purports to show an illegal search and seizure of the suspect’s home and then deputies trying to come up with stories to justify that search.

I am VERY suspicious toward all parties in this report. I’m not sure that any of the parties involved here have “pure motives,” without a i.e. agenda in mind–be that avoiding legal consequences and reprimands from superiors; or wanting to become famous in journalism; or planning and winning a civil law suit; or furthering very specific political agendas.

First, the “investigative” journalist in his narrative, in my own personal view, goes over the line of objective journalistic reporting, by taking this one incident, along with citing a state appeals judge dissension on an approved warrant-less search case in San Diego, and repeatedly asserting in what I view as broad strokes, that in his view, law enforcement and the courts in general, are systematically and intentionally violating our rights and freedoms. This may tip his hand as to his own political agenda behind his journalistic reporting.

This can frequently play into proponents of one extreme in the political spectrum of anti government, anti law enforcement rhetoric in addition to proposing seceding from the “United States,” boycotting all taxation, and stock piling weapons for the predicted civil unrest or ” resistance” against federal “storm troopers” and so on and so on. The mess at Ruby Ridge and Waco, along with assault weapon bans, are frequently cited in this context.

I am also suspicious of the man who was doing target practicing on his own property and who is the subject of this televised report. He was slow to respond to deputies telling him to put his firearm down and come toward them, citing that one of his ears had a shooting earplug in it; and when he was told to keep his hands up and get down on his knees, he instead, decides to remain standing and then reaches into his pocket! Nut head. Even if you have cell phone, that’s not what you do when at gun point, you are told by officers to keep your hands in sight. That could be perceived as a clear threat to officer safety and could end up causing a lethal shooting incident.

And I’m suspicious towards two of the deputies who, after searching the suspect’s house–which you could make an exigent circumstance case for looking for any family members shot and killed due to domestic violence which happens a lot, or clearing the house for any other suspects behind the shots fired call that could endanger officers responding–they then took his house keys from him, and entered his gun safes, and took all his firearms; the majority of which were legally registered and owned, as the sheriff’s dispatcher confirms to the deputies on the two-way radio.

The way this journalist presents his film and the audio tapes, it “appears” that the two deputies in question, had to then figure out how to justify their entry, their search of the gun safes and the confiscation of the guns, to meet “exigent circumstances,” which is the exception to the prohibition of warrant-less searches and seizures per the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Anyway, you can decide for yourself what you think is going on and who, if anybody, crossed what lines in this scenario.