Colour of Law Question

I have brought up "perception" many times before. Is that what the real question is here? The perception of the citizen? I may not be understanding. The way I read, the "perception" is that if LE is present a warrant must be, also. The reality seems to be, we are allowed to pursue him into another state, arrest him on the sabbath, and break and enter for that purpose. If a person "believes" us to be LE, that is not the same as announcing ourselves as such (so long as we are not wearing LE badges, lettering, or insignias). I am dealing with the law suit over someones "perception" (I mentioned it about a month ago) and from everything I can find, a persons belief, perception, or idea does not make fact. That is why laws are made and put to paper... to help remove misunderstanding and confusion.

_________________
********************
Thomas SnoWolf
FRN# 1999
GAPB 20120726
NSIS ST0707
http://www.rocksolidrg.com
"The hero is not the man that acts without fear,
He is the man that acts inspite of fear"

Scott
It is not perception. If law enforcement are present, visible to the occupants of the house, you are not allowed to enter without a warrant because they are in charge. The occupants civil rights are intact under color of the law because they can see the recognized authority and know their respective rights. Absent the Police, you are allowed to do what you do within the laws of your state to effect the re-arrest of the wanted subject.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

See, I thought that I may have misunderstood the question. Really, I guess it is more a case of me not comprehending the full story. My appologies.

I have always been told by LE that showed up on the scene, "Do your thing. We'll be right outside the door, incase we are needed" and never had a problem. Also, I can't find where it states that my contract/agreement is void when LE are present. Between these two, I have no fact to base a comment on.

_________________
********************
Thomas SnoWolf
FRN# 1999
GAPB 20120726
NSIS ST0707
http://www.rocksolidrg.com
"The hero is not the man that acts without fear,
He is the man that acts inspite of fear"

This seems to be where my confusion lies as well Scott and Scott. It sounds to me as if you're saying that the mere presence of LE negates my rights to conduct myself in the spirit of Tailor vs. Taintor. I do understand the concerns regarding whether it is percieved that I am acting under direction of law enforcement or as an agent of..., but that perception would really only lie in the occupants' mind. I am always very clear on identifying myself as not being law enforcement (both in language and identifying apparel such as badge and clothing). The reality would seem to be quite clear that we are opperating independantly, in my mind, the officer's mind, and the regulatory mind. And as stated, the perception of the occupants does not necessarily equate legal fact.

The other factor here is perhaps a difference between color of law regarding law enforcement vs. regulated bail bond recovery. The law supports and regulates the actions of law enforcement. Seperate law supports and regulates the actions of bail enforcement. If both are acting within their operational limits and scope, I don't see where the conflict arrises, even if they are involved in the same incident/scenario. When I operate in conjunction with law enforcement, we are both very clear on what we are able to do and not do and often this is communicated before we proceed. As in the example, the officer knew he would not be able to enter the dwelling without meeting his own guidlines, yet he knew that the agents were able to opperate differently. So it would seem to me that both parties conducted themselves within their scope of operations and adhered to their respective legal regulations.

We can have this discussion over the phone if you like, I talk better than I type. The issue is that of civil rights and the lack of knowledge or proper application of those laws does not make it correct. Precisely why in many jurisdictions when LEO are called to assist, they flatly refuse to assist Bondsmen, Bail Agents etc. Walking in the door behind you, in front of you, with you can cause their department to be sued. The fact that many do not understand this concept and we are able to migrate through it with out issue, often, is not the point. The point was to be knowledgeable and aware. The point made earlier about the drugs being seen from the doorway would instigate the question in trial of "Tell me officer, how did you test the alleged drugs positively from the doorway?" And the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine comes in.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder see above.

_________________
Mark C. Cavendish is a Certified Fugitive Recovery Agent, P.O.S.T. Certified by the State of Colorado and registered with the Arizona Department of Insurance. Member of the National Surety Investigators Network #MC806, The U.S. Professional Bail Bond Investigators Association, and a Life Member of The U.S. Coalition of Bail recovery Agents "Cobra" Control # 1058. Serveing Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.
phone 520.850.7490 24/7/365

"Sub Rosa"

_________________
If the world didn't suck we would all fall off. (Luvonda)
Nobody has power over you that you do not allow them to have. (Scott)
Be careful of the seeds you plant because one day they will be harvested.

Dave
Private Investigator
Licensed by the NYS DOS Division of Licensing

I absolutely agree with that concern, that was why the officers excercised due dilligence to receive permission to enter as they well should have. I guess my question is more along the lines of: If the officers are acting within their legal scope of operations, and we are operating within our legal scope of operations, is there still a concern if those scopes differ in some cases?

at the risk of missing out on my treatments for being obsessive/compulsive...

Separate issues, Joshua. We have our job to do and rights and procedures that govern us, but when law enforcement is visible and present, we lose some of those rights, as they are in charge of the scene, us, etc.

Do we go in the door with leo present, sure all of the time, but that wasn't Ruffin's question.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

That is how it falls here. Just their visibilty changes the scope of things.
Very fine lines and . . . some criminals are far better versed in the law that most . . .

I had a client tell me that the reason they should nt be held liable for their charge is because they have OCD. I said . . . so what does having to wash your hands repeatedly all day long have to do with internet stalking of a child . . . sheesh

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN