Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Saturday August 20 2016, @06:29PM   Printer-friendly
from the dividends-of-cooperating-with-cops dept.

TechDirt reports:

Previously, [TechDirt reported how] police officers pretty much razed a residence to the ground searching for a shoplifting suspect.

In another case, law enforcement spent nineteen hours engaged in a tense standoff with an empty residence before deciding to send in a battering ram.

Now, they're reporting another "standoff" with a lawsuit [PDF] following.

On August 11, 2014, after registering her child for first grade, Ms. West returned to her home to find multiple City of Caldwell police officers in her yard searching for a Fabian Salinas. Wanting to cooperate, and uncertain whether Salinas was in her house, Ms. West gave the police a key to her house and gave them permission to use it to enter her house to arrest him. During a ten hour long standoff, police repeatedly exceeded the authority Ms. West had given them, breaking windows, crashing through ceilings, and riddling the home with holes from shooting canisters of tear gas destroying most of Ms. West and her children's personal belongings. The only occupant of the house was Ms. West's dog. Ms. West's home remained uninhabitable for two months.

[...] So, when given a key and consent from the occupant, officers instead chose to grab an armored vehicle and go through several windows and the attic.

[...] This happened back in 2014 but there's been no coverage of the Caldwell cops' 10-hour, one-dog standoff until now. Thomas Johnson of Fault Lines suggests that might have something to do with the local paper of record.

If you're wondering why it took a couple of years for this event to make news outside of Idaho, it's because the local paper apparently only checks court records or their exclusive police source, resulting in some very incomplete reporting. Why bother getting out there and talking to the homeowner or neighbors when you can sit on your chunk?

[...] From all appearances, the suspect was never in the home during the 10-hour standoff.

[...] The police did give her a three-week stay in a hotel. Too bad it took more than two months for her to be able to return to her residence. This raid on a house containing nothing more than a dog is the natural side effect of police militarization, which encourages law enforcement to escalate in questionable situations, rather than use more measured tactics to ensure occupants aren't deprived of a place to live simply because a suspect might be hiding somewhere behind closed doors.

Previously: 19-Hour "Standoff" Ends With Cops Destroying an Empty House


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:42PM (#390680)

    Not to mention part of their budgets include giving out tickets and issuing fines.

    For instance in California there are laws to discourage people from smoking in or near buildings. Yet local cops generally don't enforce it because they don't get a cut out of the fines because the state refuses to give them a commission. So it would have to be a state official that enforces these laws and how often do they come by. Consequently, from what I hear, if you enter any bar or similar establishment around here you are pretty sure to find that there are people smoking inside. The police won't do anything even though it's against the law and the establishment doesn't care because they won't get punished. The police pretty much refuse to enforce a state law at their own expense.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:00PM (#390737)

    in California there are laws to discourage people from smoking in or near buildings

    Inside, certainly.
    ...and there are exemptions e.g. private clubs.
    Note: You may find some places that calls themselves private clubs and have a minimal barrier to "membership".

    "Near" is too general.
    The law specifies 20 feet from a portal or ventilation intake.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:10AM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Sunday August 21 2016, @09:10AM (#390956) Journal

    Consequently, from what I hear, if you enter any bar or similar establishment around here you are pretty sure to find that there are people smoking inside.

    I''ve spent my life in the Bay Area (mostly North & East), and I haven't seen anyone smoking in a restaurant or bar since the law was passed way the fuck back in the early-mid 1990s, but I *have* seen police, security & employees enforcing it around doorways. Our statewide smoking rate is 11.x% of adults and the area immediately north of me has the 3rd highest rate, so I can't imagine it's all that different in the rest of the state.

    A few web searches didn't reveal articles on the topic (at least, not for California) since 1998, so I looked up our current smoking laws [ca.gov]. They state that local police handle enforcement and can/do fine establishments:
    …any violation of the smoking rules is an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a first violation, by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation within one year, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for a third and for each subsequent violation within one year.

    While the police often don't bother to prosecute, if the company gets 3 complaints in a year, at that point Cal/OSHA is required to perform inspection (a big enough hassle to be a deterrent in itself, from what my father has said) and can/will levy thousands of dollars in fines if they think the place is violating the ban.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @06:08PM (#391126)

      Thanks. Maybe I was misinformed.

      Then again, as I look around online, I see that there is at least one person smoking in this picture

      https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/the-greatest-hawthorne?select=h3NpEZjgrQ8j05aMUm8eNQ [yelp.com]

      The Yelp reviews seem to indicate that smoking is allowed inside. I know someone that went there that doesn't generally go there so it's not like they have a membership if one is required. I'm sure one is not required. This person that went there is the person that told me that these types of establishments informally allow smoking inside although they legally shouldn't.

      I'm sure I can find more examples if I dug.
      I'm sure if I dug I can find many more examples.