Lawsuit alleges Boone County Deputies falsely arrested husband, wife

[lawildcat]

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.

 

Like Jerry Garcia sang, "well, if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in". :thumb:

 

I've always taught my kids that if the police come to the door, you tell them to wait right there on the porch while you go get your parents and do not let them come inside.

[AverageJoesGym]

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

 

None at all. I do have enough common sense to see that there was no reason to offer a deal that let all 3 off (especially the son) if they didn't anticipate some difficulty trying their case.

[halfback20]

None at all. I do have enough common sense to see that there was no reason to offer a deal that let all 3 off (especially the son) if they didn't anticipate some difficulty trying their case.

 

You don't have any clue as to why a certain deal was offered. Neither do I. The difference is i don't pretend to know.

[woodsrider]

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.

Let me clarify. When an officer is executing his duties, such as arresting you or a family member or a friend it isn't the time to argue. It will end badly for you, period. I don't care if it's in your yard, porch, house, side of the road, insert name of place of your choosing. I'm not talking about an officer trying to come in your house to look around or whatever. I'm talking about tickets, arrests, ect... You will not win that fight in that moment.

[oldgrappler]

^ agreed. But the mother had no warrants against her and she and her husband are the home owners, not the son. That's why I asked if she was obligated to produce the son when the police came calling. They said they had a warrant but did not produce it to her. What does the law obligate her to do and what does the constitution allow her to refuse to do? If LEOs sometimes lie, is she within her rights to ask for proof? And if they have a warrant, is she obligated to allow them to come in and arrest her son? The law said if the officers KNOW the son is in the house they have to go in and get him. BUt if they exercise discretion and walk away because they are not certain, can they come back on the mother later and say that by not producing the son she was harboring a criminal and thereby broke a law?

 

As I said, the hypotheticals are endless but this one is relevant to the case.

 

I am just wondering.

Edited September 16, 2016 by oldgrappler

[woodsrider]

^ agreed. But the mother had no warrants against her and she and her husband are the home owners, not the son. That's why I asked if she was obligated to produce the son when the police came calling. They said they had a warrant but did not produce it to her. What does the law obligate her to do and what does the constitution allow her to refuse to do? If LEOs sometimes lie, is she within her rights to ask for proof? And if they have a warrant, is she obligated to allow them to come in and arrest her son? The law said if the officers KNOW the son is in the house they have to go in and get him. BUt if they exercise discretion and walk away because they are not certain, can they come back on the mother later and say that by not producing the son she was harboring a criminal and thereby broke a law?

 

As I said, the hypotheticals are endless but this one is relevant to the case.

 

I am just wondering.

Not sure on what her obligation is. I would guess she is guilty of hindering or harboring or something if she lies and says he isn't there but really do not know.

[se7ens]

9 pages only one reference to the fact that the deputy was Brockman. Figured that the bulk of this thread was going to be related to that fact. IMO we would have never heard of this incident and no attorney would have looked at twice at filing suit if Brockman or someone in his situation was not involved. Easy target, already been demonized by some in the media and general public. My speculation would be the plaintiff's attorney will try to make the case about Deputy Brockman's judgment. Again, just my speculation.

[sportsfan41]

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.

 

 

Perhaps in your neck of the woods. Not the way the courts often work in NKY. Very rarely do non felony charges go to trial. You're acting as though charges were dropped completely, they weren't.

[theguru]

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?

 

No obligation, the mom could have told them to pound salt.

 

Obviously her ignorance of the law on more than one level got her mixed up in all this.

[oldgrappler]

^ There's the answer I've been waiting for.

[Clyde]

9 pages only one reference to the fact that the deputy was Brockman. Figured that the bulk of this thread was going to be related to that fact. IMO we would have never heard of this incident and no attorney would have looked at twice at filing suit if Brockman or someone in his situation was not involved. Easy target, already been demonized by some in the media and general public. My speculation would be the plaintiff's attorney will try to make the case about Deputy Brockman's judgment. Again, just my speculation.

 

I'm sure it played a part - potentially a significant part. I'm guessing the attorney will try to portray Offc Brockman as an "overzealous cop" and use the Ramsey case to help support that.

[Clyde]

We've talked about what an officer HAS to do when asked questions.

 

IMO officers as a whole could use some training on objection handling. Sales guys have to do it all of the time or they never get the deal. You have to anticipate what might be said/asked, you have to show some empathy, and you have to keep the emotions out of it.

 

An officer who refuses to answer or gives a curt reply may be making the situation much worse for himself by the words he uses. In no way am I advocating they get in long discussions/debates. Their job is to affect the effect the execution of the warrant. What I am saying is that you may be able to get Mom and Dad , who are obviously in an emotional state, to be calm by words. "I'm a parent. I get it. However, we're just going to do what we have to do which is to take your son in. I know this isn't pleasant but let's not make it any harder than it has to be." Done. Shows empathy (parent to parent) vs a perceived power trip.

 

Maybe Mom and Dad are now just following the cruiser to the station to support their son vs going to the station in the back seat if words are used more effectively.

 

(Same goes for my fellow umpires and officials)

[halfback20]

We've talked about what an officer HAS to do when asked questions.

 

IMO officers as a whole could use some training on objection handling. Sales guys have to do it all of the time or they never get the deal. You have to anticipate what might be said/asked, you have to show some empathy, and you have to keep the emotions out of it.

 

An officer who refuses to answer or gives a curt reply may be making the situation much worse for himself by the words he uses. In no way am I advocating they get in long discussions/debates. Their job is to affect the effect the execution of the warrant. What I am saying is that you may be able to get Mom and Dad , who are obviously in an emotional state, to be calm by words. "I'm a parent. I get it. However, we're just going to do what we have to do which is to take your son in. I know this isn't pleasant but let's not make it any harder than it has to be." Done. Shows empathy (parent to parent) vs a perceived power trip.

 

Maybe Mom and Dad are now just following the cruiser to the station to support their son vs going to the station in the back seat if words are used more effectively.

 

(Same goes for my fellow umpires and officials)

 

I bet most already go through verbal judo training. It's quite possible they tried those techniques isn't it?

[Hellbird]

Seems like that should be more of an issue. Officers of the law should be telling the truth. If that's not policy, it makes it hard to accept what they say.

So you are saying anybody that approaches an officer while he is

oerforming his duties during a warrant arrest should have to explain to whoever asks what is going on? The suspect was an adult, 24 year old adult. I disagree with UKF and Lipton about having to say anything to those not involved. Need to know basis comes to mind.

 

After the arrest is made and the suspect is secured and in the back of the cruiser, that is when his parents could have asked questions etc. whether the officers answer then is up to them. But interfering with the arrest itself is not the time or place.

 

Btw, to answer Clydes

question. Verbal judo is taught at the academy in Richmond to both Police recruits as well as 911 dispatchers.

[Clyde]

I bet most already go through verbal judo training. It's quite possible they tried those techniques isn't it?

 

I would hope. Speaking bigger picture.