Bad Dog!
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.
The only problem here is the skip was not in this particular house.
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.
:) 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! :)
Bad Dog!
Correct.
I've ordered a tank top ... braaaaaaaaaa! :)
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.
Well, I would normally agree. But quite frequently these days, the cops don't represent themselves as cops either.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Incorrect.
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.
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.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
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.
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.
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.