Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bounty hunter arrested for break in (Reverse Wrong-House)
KOB-TV (Albuquerque, NM) ^ | 1/26/06 | Reed Upton

Posted on 01/29/2006 4:54:55 PM PST by elkfersupper

An Albuquerque based bounty hunter was arrested Wednesday night for breaking into the wrong house – a house that belongs to an Albuquerque police officer.

Police say that on January 14th, 37-year-old RobertTurner was looking for someone who hadn’t lived at the particular house for 25 years when he broke into a home. There were two kids in the home at the time.

“It’s not only reckless but it’s frightening, if you think about somebody giving your address and somebody entering your home,” said APD spokesman John Walsh. “In this particular case we had two teens, 11 and 15 years old, at home and it frightened those two kids to the point where they went to a back room.”

Turner works for Affordable Bail Bonds of Albuquerque. Police are investigating whether he represented himself as a law enforcement officer.

Turner was apprehended Wednesday evening in a car that looked like a police officer’s car. His business card says he is an “agent” and features a logo with a police badge on it.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: New Mexico
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; leo; libertarians; libertatian; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: jude24

The only problem here is the skip was not in this particular house.


61 posted on 01/29/2006 6:22:55 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: 1L

But the interesting thing is that a cop can't just break into a house to arrest someone. He's gotta have a warrant in most circumstances. So you're left wondering how the authorities can contractually allow this. They are effectively giving the bail bondsman more power than they themselves have.


62 posted on 01/29/2006 6:24:05 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: overkill_007_2000
Agreed, my FRiend ;)

:) Having recently seen Rob with the Priest, I can confirm his continued presence at the top of the Metal heap ... Along with another old crooner, Mr. Dickinson!

These threads truly do take odd twists! :)

63 posted on 01/29/2006 6:24:14 PM PST by Mr. Buzzcut (metal god ... visit The Ponderosa .... www.vandelay.com ... DEATH BEFORE DHIMMITUDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Ooops!

Bad Dog!


64 posted on 01/29/2006 6:25:00 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
They are effectively giving the bail bondsman more power than they themselves have.

Correct.

65 posted on 01/29/2006 6:25:34 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

I've ordered a tank top ... braaaaaaaaaa! :)


66 posted on 01/29/2006 6:26:04 PM PST by Mr. Buzzcut (metal god ... visit The Ponderosa .... www.vandelay.com ... DEATH BEFORE DHIMMITUDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
But the interesting thing is that a cop can't just break into a house to arrest someone. He's gotta have a warrant in most circumstances. So you're left wondering how the authorities can contractually allow this. They are effectively giving the bail bondsman more power than they themselves have.

Seriously, when watching "Dog, The Bounty Hunter" on A & E, I've puzzled over that myself.

Does the bail bond impute more power to the holder than a normal warrant?

Maybe it does.

67 posted on 01/29/2006 6:28:54 PM PST by Mr. Buzzcut (metal god ... visit The Ponderosa .... www.vandelay.com ... DEATH BEFORE DHIMMITUDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: jude24
the bail bondsman represented himself as a cop. Impersonation appears to be the problem here.

Well, I would normally agree. But quite frequently these days, the cops don't represent themselves as cops either.

wearing camouflage clothing with no conspicuously visible marks identifying the officers as law enforcement personnel.

68 posted on 01/29/2006 6:29:58 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Was it later determined the judge screwed up?-

Pretty much.

The papers all said the cops got a bad tip, and had flimsey information.

The NYPD had an internal investigation.

At which point the papers moved on.

Months later, it became clear that the judge screwed up, but while that was being admitted, the NYPD was talking about higher proof being needed for asking for search warrants.

The judge never should have given a warrant, and to top it off, he had the wrong address given to the cops.

I'm trying to remember the judges name, I know he is still on the bench and something happened late last year involving him (not in any way related to this case, it was something dumb, court room expences or something like that).

69 posted on 01/29/2006 6:45:02 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 1L
Its contractual between the bonding company and the person bonding. It says they can basically use whatever means necessary for recovery.
Party A: The bonding company.

Party B: the bonded person.

Party C: the innocent homeowner who doesn't know that Party B (his houseguest) has a contract with Party A.

Why is Party C subject to a contract between Party A and Party B?

I think Party C has the right --- even the duty --- to blow the brains out of any Party A representative who comes crashing through his door.

The 1872 decision is stupid and should be revoked.

70 posted on 01/29/2006 6:54:27 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
When persons unknown come crashing into one's home, the innocent homeowner is perfectly justified in using lethal force. It should never even get to a jury.

I'm waiting for the day when the cops break into the wrong house and get blown away by the homeowner. Home owner would walk if I was on the jury.

71 posted on 01/29/2006 6:54:35 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

It would be unfortunate if it were to happen, but only a prosecutor who was either trying to placate the police or keep his government from a lawsuit would try to convict an innocent homeowner under those conditions. It would be prosecutorial misconduct, I think.


72 posted on 01/29/2006 7:01:30 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

When I said, "whatever means", I meant whatever means concerning the bail jumper for HIS possession, in HIS house. Obviously, they can't do it in YOUR house.

I missed the reference to the 1872 decision. I just skimmed the thread.


73 posted on 01/29/2006 7:14:06 PM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 1L
Obviously, they can't do it in YOUR house.

Incorrect.

74 posted on 01/29/2006 7:26:40 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
The judge never should have given a warrant, and to top it off, he had the wrong address given to the cops.

Didn't the police, based on the informant's tip, give the address to the judge? The judge's error seemed to be not giving proper oversight to the police.

From http://www.wnbc.com/news/2240319/detail.html:

A police raid on the wrong apartment that resulted in the death of a 57-year-old woman was caused by a communication breakdown between officers, according to an internal department report.

Alberta Spruill went into cardiac arrest after the May 16 raid, during which officers broke down her door, threw a flash grenade and handcuffed her. A police informant wrongly identified her Harlem apartment as one used by an armed drug dealer to stash cocaine and heroin.

~snip~

The 24-page Internal Affairs Bureau report, released Friday, says police did not conduct surveillance on Spruill's apartment to verify the informant's tip.

75 posted on 01/29/2006 7:37:18 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Why on Earth are you assuming the home owner is not allowed to defend himself????

In fact, if you looked at it, the bondsman has a legal warrant to apprehend and detain until he can present he/she to a judge, their bondee ONLY. The homeowner can shoot him dead (depending on the local laws) BEFORE he sees the warrant if he decides to break down anybodys door. Or, the homeowner can shoot him dead (depending on the local laws), if the bondee is not present in the house.

Besides that, a bondee is considered "incarcerated" "out on Bond". The only difference between a jail inmate and a bondee is the bond.

This bondsman, in the posted story, is a jerk.


76 posted on 01/29/2006 7:59:45 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
77 posted on 01/29/2006 8:14:55 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

I am curious as to how many thousands of police officers faithfully fulfill their duties while risking their lives daily without one shred of thanks. All professions have good and bad.


78 posted on 01/29/2006 8:21:18 PM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
My understanding was that it was a typographical error on the warrant in question, and that even then, the initial warrant should never have been granted in the first place.

Based on a seperate incident, not involving this one (about the judge), the blame came back to the cops, the judge, and then back over again.

I.E. bad tip, plus judge giving warrant that should not have been given, plus a screw up on the address, wound up with one dead elderly woman.

Its the major reason why the press stopped dealing with the case and let it slide. It simply became a run around.

The IAB report is supposed to note something about the judge in vague terms, but from I understand, gave more recommendations then initial blame.

79 posted on 01/29/2006 8:33:10 PM PST by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy
When persons unknown come crashing into one's home, the innocent homeowner is perfectly justified in using lethal force. It should never even get to a jury.

Unless, you're a cop. In which case, if they made a mistake or not, if you shoot one of them, you're in trouble. If they shoot you, oh well...sorry. Things happen.

80 posted on 01/29/2006 8:41:04 PM PST by Thumper1960 (The enemy within: Demoncrats and DSA.ORG Sedition is a Liberal "family value".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson