4th amendment shredded MUST WATCH VID

[NOOB]

Sheriff's deputies' disdain for Constitution captured by their own recorded comments

When San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Murphy responded to a “shots fired” call in April 2008, he decided en route that he was going to make an arrest.

He did far more than that.

http://www.kccn.tv/

When San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Murphy responded to a “shots fired” call in April 2008, he decided en route that he was going to make an arrest.

He did far more than that. Murphy and other deputies made an unwarranted entry into a home, and then into a locked gun safe. Murphy's uncensored, darkly disturbing observations and behavior following his Code-3 arrival at the rural home of longtime SLO County resident Matt Hart were picked up by Murphy's and other deputies’ own recorders. Those recordings provide a rare, frighteningly revealing, behind-the-scenes perspective of how one local law enforcement agency views the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and other laws its personnel are sworn to uphold.

i found this also
It was but a stroke of luck that video and audio surveillance existed, otherwise Mr. Hart could be spending a long time in prison. The felony charges were dropped, but Mr. Hart had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. This, in itself, was a travesty, as Mr. Hart had a public defender, likely due to a lack of funds, and therefore did not have the ability to rigorously defend himself.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/107/377/ ... verup.html

[SLV^GLD]

Well, that is 2 years in the past. Where are these officers today?

[NOOB]

Probably promoted.

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

A recent call to the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff’s department reported shots fired at a two-acre privately owned residence in an unincorporated area of the county.

When Sheriff’s deputies arrived, they immediately moved to detain homeowner Matt Hart, who was sighting in his .22 caliber rifle, as he had done for years, legally, on his own property.

What happened next is nothing short of a clear setup of the homeowner for criminal violations, and a subsequent cover up to protect the arresting officers. As luck would have it, much of the arrest and search and seizure of Mr. Hart’s home and weapons was caught on audio and video surveillance by police issued equipment.

At question is whether or not the Sheriff’s department violated the fourth amendment rights of Mr. Hart by searching his premises without a warrant and without any justifiable cause.

Officers, knowing full well that they were walking a very thin line, discussed how they would go about justifying the unreasonable search and seizure, go so far as to conspire to charge Mr. Hart with multiple crimes including:
Gross negligent discharge of a firearm
Brandishing a firearm
Possession of a machine gun
Resisting arrest

After watching the video below, most, if not all, American citizens will be outraged at how the Sheriff’s department deputies, in order to save their own skins from criminal and civil penalties, moved to take away the freedoms of a single American who should be protected by Constitutional laws specifically designed for this scenario.

The following portions of conversations are highlighted, as the discussion between officers clearly shows an effort to trump up charges, set up Mr. Hart and save their own butts:

Deputies contemplate how to justify entering the premises without a warrant and seizing weapons:

Deputy Murphy: You’re the detective…do we need a warrant to get into that gun safe? [Deputies had already entered the premises]

Det. Twisselman: …I don’t think…welll…I don’t think under…

Murphy: …exigent circumstances?

Det. Twisselman: …exigent circumstances, you have to.

…

Det. Twisselman: Let’s get your brain going…was the exigency for enter the house…

Deputy Murphy: ‘…bodies?

Unidentified: …potential…victims?

…

Deputy: We take the guns as safe keeping.

Exigent circumstances are those when police believe that entry is necessary to prevent physical harm, destruction of evidence, or escape of a suspect (Supreme Court US. v McConney).

Obviously, the officers enter the home first, then realized they violated Constitutional protects, and had to come up with a reason for doing so. they did this by way of trumping up a criminal charge:

Unidentified deputy: There’s targets down there.

Murphy: Are there any houses down there?

Unidentified deputy: Well, I saw a car driving back there.

Murphy: Well, that’s an area where there are house and stuff?

Unidentified deputy: Yeah.

Murphy: Well, Screw Him. Negligent discharge.

And that’s how it works folks.

The homeowner, Matt Hart, apparently had told the police he would file a complaint about the police entering his house. Deputy Murphy was none to happy about this:

Unidentified deputy: He’s already talking about calling and complaining about us being in his house, so I want whoever writes this up to articulate the reason why.

Murphy: I will supplement it and use very flowery language.

Flowery language to essentially charge an innocent American citizen with at least three felonies, potentially imprisoning the man for decades, all so that Deputy Murphy can keep his job and avoid criminal prosecution himself!

In an effort to make themselves feel better about stripping a man of his rights, Deputies Murphy and Wells had this to say:

Murphy: We are totally…totally justified in everything we did.

Wells: I believe so, too.

[Gaillo]

Well, that is 2 years in the past. Where are these officers today?


Running the department, no doubt.

[BrewTech]

Excellent video... shows clearly the mindset and actions of contemporary LEO.

Thanks for posting.