Lawsuit alleges Boone County Deputies falsely arrested husband, wife

[capt278]

And UKMustang's questioning brought up something else in my mind. The mother asked to see a warrant and offered to take her son to court the next day. Her request was refused or denied. The officers began shining a flashlight in the windows at which point the mother woke up her son and he went outside, leading to his arrest.

 

Had the mother not indicated whether the son was in her house or not and just said, "I am sorry but we cannot help you. Please leave the premises," then closed the door and gone back to bed, would she be in violation of the law? Or is she obligated, by law, to produce her son?

 

(BTW, I already have a good idea of the answer cause I watch a lot of Law enforcement-themed TV shows like Bluebloods, Law and Order, and Criminal Minds, and that's practically as good as a law degree so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes when you answer)

 

KRS says a deputy can enter or break in the residence to arrest a person or if they suspect a person that is a fugitive/has a warrant is inside.

[oldgrappler]

Thank you. But that leaves unanswered whether the parents are obligated to produce the son. If the deputies are uncertain that the son is at the parent's residence and the Mom closes the door and goes back to bed, the officers may decide they don't want to break down the door so they leave.

 

Are the parents in violation of the law because they did not produce a person who had a warrant and was in their house when the officers asked for him?

[capt278]

Thank you. But that leaves unanswered whether the parents are obligated to produce the son. If the deputies are uncertain that the son is at the parent's residence and the Mom closes the door and goes back to bed, the officers may decide they don't want to break down the door so they leave.

 

Are the parents in violation of the law because they did not produce a person who had a warrant and was in their house when the officers asked for him?

 

I'm pretty sure you can be charged with harboring a fugitive in such a case. I would think it would be rare to charge someone with that unless the fugitive they are hiding is wanted for a major felony.

[halfback20]

And UKMustang's questioning brought up something else in my mind. The mother asked to see a warrant and offered to take her son to court the next day. Her request was refused or denied. The officers began shining a flashlight in the windows at which point the mother woke up her son and he went outside, leading to his arrest.

 

Had the mother not indicated whether the son was in her house or not and just said, "I am sorry but we cannot help you. Please leave the premises," then closed the door and gone back to bed, would she be in violation of the law? Or is she obligated, by law, to produce her son?

 

(BTW, I already have a good idea of the answer cause I watch a lot of Law enforcement-themed TV shows like Bluebloods, Law and Order, and Criminal Minds, and that's practically as good as a law degree so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes when you answer)

 

If they could see him inside, they can go get him themselves.

 

If they don't see him inside, and have no way of knowing if he's inside, I'm fairly certain the mom could have said thanks but no thanks and denied consent for them to enter.

 

She doesn't have the right to take him to court the next day if there's a warrant for his arrest. That warrant commands any officer of the law to arrest him.

[sportsfan41]

They said the warrant was for assault and fleeing. It was for unpaid court costs.

 

Doesn't matter.

[woodsrider]

On a domestic issue like this I tend to give the officers a little more leeway. Domestic calls can be some of the most dangerous and officers are going to be on edge. You never know when mom of dad is going to do something stupid to keep junior out of cuffs...or a wife or husband.

 

Maybe these officers over stepped but like guru said on your porch or the side of the road isn't the place to try and become a constitutional lawyer. Stay the hell out of the way, let them do their job and call Getslow.

 

Another question is if they really didn't do anything why did they cut a deal?

[AverageJoesGym]

On a domestic issue like this I tend to give the officers a little more leeway. Domestic calls can be some of the most dangerous and officers are going to be on edge. You never know when mom of dad is going to do something stupid to keep junior out of cuffs...or a wife or husband.

 

Maybe these officers over stepped but like guru said on your porch or the side of the road isn't the place to try and become a constitutional lawyer. Stay the hell out of the way, let them do their job and call Getslow.

 

Another question is if they really didn't do anything why did they cut a deal?

 

I'm guessing because the deal stipulated that the prosecutor would not jail their son. This way their case is diverted and their son stays out of jail.

 

Just as good a question: If the parents were completely in the wrong why would the prosecution offer a plea that would erase their conviction and free the son?

[woodsrider]

I'm guessing because the deal stipulated that the prosecutor would not jail their son. This way their case is diverted and their son stays out of jail.

 

Just as good a question: If the parents were completely in the wrong why would the prosecution offer a plea that would erase their conviction and free the son?

My guess is because these aren't hard core felons. They probably have more important cases to deal with and this was a quick way of disposing of the case.

[AverageJoesGym]

My guess is because these aren't hard core felons. They probably have more important cases to deal with and this was a quick way of disposing of the case.

 

Then why offer to let the son off too? Sounds to me like the prosecution was to buy them off. If they had them dead to rights there was no reason to include the son in the deal. They could have simply offered the diversion and if they didn't take it convict them.

[woodsrider]

Then why offer to let the son off too? Sounds to me like the prosecution was to buy them off. If they had them dead to rights there was no reason to include the son in the deal. They could have simply offered the diversion and if they didn't take it convict them.

These were victimless, it disposes of all 3 quick and easy. They do some community service and the prosecution moves on to more important things.

[AverageJoesGym]

These were victimless, it disposes of all 3 quick and easy. They do some community service and the prosecution moves on to more important things.

 

Sure. I'm surprised they didn't throw in a set of steak knives to get them all over with quicker. Those disorderly conduct trials can drag on for months and cost millions of dollars.

[woodsrider]

Sure. I'm surprised they didn't throw in a set of steak knives to get them all over with quicker. Those disorderly conduct trials can drag on for months and cost millions of dollars.

Ok how about this, call the prosecutor and ask them why they offered the deal. I don't have time for your smart butt responses.

[halfback20]

Then why offer to let the son off too? Sounds to me like the prosecution was to buy them off. If they had them dead to rights there was no reason to include the son in the deal. They could have simply offered the diversion and if they didn't take it convict them.

 

You must have a lot of experience as a prosecutor. The way you talk, you've made similar deals before.

[oldgrappler]

On a domestic issue like this I tend to give the officers a little more leeway. Domestic calls can be some of the most dangerous and officers are going to be on edge. You never know when mom of dad is going to do something stupid to keep junior out of cuffs...or a wife or husband.

 

Maybe these officers over stepped but like guru said on your porch or the side of the road isn't the place to try and become a constitutional lawyer. Stay the hell out of the way, let them do their job and call Getslow.

 

Another question is if they really didn't do anything why did they cut a deal?

 

This comment is not particular to this case but is a general truth and is prompted by the phrase in bold above: I would say that when the police are on your porch that is the perfect time to be a constitutional lawyer. In other words, every citizen has constitutional rights and may exercise them. It is unnerving to have an officer outside your door demanding to come in. There are occasions when you have to let them in and there are occasions when you don't have to let them in. Know this before the situation arises because you will need to be confident in the assertion of your rights. As was said, LEOs will sometimes lie to resolve a situation in as safe a manner as possible while accomplishing their goal. It serves their purpose but it may not be in your best interest.

 

Generally, I side with LE. But on my front porch, in my house, I want things done by the book (constitution). This does not mean I know exactly what my rights are. I need to go back watch the first 5 seasons of the original Law and Order. Then I will be as good as a constitutional lawyer.

[oldgrappler]

Ok how about this, call the prosecutor and ask them why they offered the deal. I don't have time for your smart butt responses.

 

:laugh: Yes, hypotheticals in law are endless. It's why attorneys make the big bucks.