So if police can’t get a search warrant they can just have a buddy call in a burglary or welfare check and voilà no warrant needed. This is absolutely nuts if you think about it.
And just maybe this clown that already had two frivolous lawsuits dismissed against the Police, just called in the Burglary himself to get the cops in his house to file a third law suit.
@@SaltyFailWhale A call of a Burglary is not necessarily going to allow LE to enter. What did they find upon arrival? Was a door open, window broken? Signs of a Burglary? Even with the report of a possible Burglary, LE is not usually going to break in if there are no signs of Burglary already.
Is there a wonder why so many cops are being attacked? Do these cops not realize they can and are being found? They have become the SS of so called law enforcement
The expert is regularly paid by the police to advise them on procedures and the legality of what they do........no, he is paid by the police to basically support and justify everything they do, or he doesn't get paid to "consult" ever again.
@Boz Scaggs 1,000% sure his opinion is biased. If the journalist wanted an honest answer, he would have consulted a retired judge or attorney, not a man dependent on the police for his livelihood.
@@RuthPreach I teach search and seizure to police at both the academy and in service training. The "expert" is absolutely wrong on many counts. He either doesn't understand basic principles or is unethical. He got the scope of exigent circumstances wrong, community caretaking was shot down by courts, he misinterpreted plain view, and thinks if an officer sees something that may be contraband they get a full warrantless search of the entire resistance with no probable cause evidence of a maybe crime even existed. Unacceptable!!!
@@jasonsherman5194 Please forgive my comment. I for mistook the word "expert" for auditor. I went ahead and deleted it. I'm glad to learn that even though I have just the basic knowledge of law, I too won't fall for their malarkey. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
@@josephhodges9819 one doesn't need credentials to know an illegal act. do you need someone with credentials to tell you that stealing a car or any other criminal act that it's illegal?
@@jeremynolan852 Apples and Oranges. If you are going to state it as fact then I want to know exactly what your credentials are. You use stealing a car as an example but what if the car is running and blocking your driveway and you get in the car and move it just enough to unblock your driveway. In some jurisdictions moving the car is considered theft but in some areas just moving it an inch can be considered theft. Millions of people do fantasy football and even winning $10 can be considered illegal gambling and hence a felony.
@@josephhodges9819 You made The credentials fallacy . A logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant. You don't need any credentials to know theft is against the law. You don't need any credentials to know murder, rape or anything else that it's illegal to do so. Also no need for a hypothetical since we have a video showing what happened. Also a jury needs no special credentials to judge someone is guilty of a crime.
@@jeremynolan852 Took you a bit to find something to counteract what I said. Congratulations. The problem is that the first person stated an opinion that they formed to infer it was a fact so I call their argument out. I still call BS on their comment so there you go, everyone has opinions and conjectures but no facts.
When I called ambulances for my elderly parents, the cops always came as well. That wasn’t a problem until I found out they were searching their home when I wasn’t there one time. We have a massive safe in the garage and my mom said that one cop said to the other “I’d sure like to see inside that safe!” They tried to get my mom to open it, but she didn’t know how and my dad was in the ambulance. That police department has a long history of stealing firearms and you have to hire an expensive lawyer to get them returned.
Elsewhere on UA-cam there's annotated body camera footage where the victim alleges that one of the officers conducting the search found a collection football or baseball cards, and that the valuable cards that were in the collection were later found to be missing from the collection.
Right, stealing is the only reason you think cops would be opening cabinets. Sorry but that is what you would be doing it for. They thought they did not have a search warrant and were looking for illegal items.
So that's how the _"Plain View"_ doctrine works. Once the cops crack open a homeowner's safe, the cash and valuables inside are now in _"Plain View"_ and free for the taking. 😃
It would IF without manipulation the object can be seen I.e. through a glass cabinet. The problem is the item has to be clear contraband, and firearms are simply legal unless stolen, so they had no right to remove it or run it even if they could see it because they had no probable cause or a warrant. That’s right they need to genuinely believe he is guilty of firearms theft to have PC
3:09/T0:59:37Z clearing and sweeping. ; :46/T01:03:19Z "I cleared it", meaning the protective sweep is over. ; 2:59/T01:09:34Z they find gun in cabinet. which begs the question - why are they still in the house after clearing and Buie Sweeping the house? finding gun is fruit of "poisionus tree". 1:58/T01:13::44Z guns serial # not reported as stolen in NCIC
This guy didn't just get his house broken into by a burglar the police broke in and did just as much damage if not more damage to the guy's property yeah you need to sue the hell out of blood with the police department they're the ones that broke the law
Interesting how the mainstream media can always find a pro-police apologist (presented as here as a disinterested expert) who will justify police actions, then juxtapose the apologist's account with the claims of the victim. I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of legal experts who would be available to provide a counter-factual to the pro-police explanation. The method of presentation here sets up an implicit bias against the victim when the average viewer is attempting to assess the rights and wrongs of the situation.
If cops are investigating a break in and they searched, found nothing....they're done and should have been out the door, securing the house but leaving a note advising what happened..... Them snooping around, looking in cabinets and such is a violation of tge 4th Amendment.....These cops along with the chief should read it sometime....soon!!
Illegal, if the search was legal, why is there a search warrant process? Individuals who claim it was a textbook situation need to go back and read some more textbooks, mainly the Constitution Individual who are paid to serve and protect should be held to a higher standard, we are not paying these individuals to terrorizers citizens.
Abusing “extenuating circumstances’, true to form of most cops. But think honestly, if you were the chief or even just their supervisor, would want to be responsible for cops that are stupid enough to record themselves making such stupid comments? The search was illegal, that’s obvious, so they used the technicality to get inside, but then they violated the homeowners rights by looking in shoe box size areas for a grown burglar. In cases like this, there should be a citizens survey/poll done. Do you want to pay for cops this ignorant of the law? Then, majority rules whether they get fired or stay. I’d rather they be fired than be responsible for cover any lawsuits these clowns cause.
This is why you never let officers in or answer questions. They will bend the law to be able to do what they want and when they want. There was no reason to do a property search when they should have been conducting a person’s search. I’m sure if you look into these officer’s records you will find misconduct or reports of it.
The "expert" has no integrity. There is no way the search is lawful beyond the exigent circumstances. After it was determined no emergency existed the search was supposed to end. The police decided to search for contraband beyond the scope of the original search. Even if they located the gun during the initial search, there is 3 prongs to Plainview. Officer has to be in a lawful place at time the contraband was seen, it must be seen without manipulation, and it must be readily apparent the item is contraband. The video clearly shows manipulation and the officers comments show it was not apparent it was even unlawful. Assuming the police observed the pistol on Plainview during the exigent circumstance search (they didn't) and they knew it was unlawful, It would only give them cause to seize the pistol not to continue to search. The search should have stopped and if the police had probable cause there was more evidence, they could apply for a search warrant.
go to 2:00 in the video. cop3 asks "did it come back"? cop1 says "no, blah blah, not for the MAKE of it". Cop2 say "Then, its " (not stolen)." The TV station (and the cop attorneys, presumably) collaborated to cut the ("not stolen") from the video. They conducted a second query that is not shown on the video, because I probably forgot to give them video from Cop1 body cam. In that query, they never gave the dispatch officer the MAKE of the pistol. I guess everyone in Milwaukee is afraid of MPD, even the media. Also, according to Mincey v. Arizona, "NO WARRANTLESS SEARCH CAN CONTINUE OR BEGIN AFTER THE EXIGENCY ENDS". Mr. Sherman, you know law.
This is the same type of attitude thatblead to the shooting of an elder man in his house who can't hear very well and has a flashlight from an officer shining it in the elder man's eyes. I'm tired of these officers making excuse for their negligent acts and doing what the want without any regard for the law that they are sworn to up hold Personally,, I don't trust law enforcement anymore.
Those cops exceeded their mission and they knew it, they were on a fishing expedition, just listen to the disrespectful banter , there was zero officer safety or “caretaker “ functions at play here ! ex State Trooper here.
This is why we need to remove her immunity and require mall to carry their own personal million-dollar Bond this way they'll be held responsible for their actions
Well they was there for a burglary they wasn't there to look in his drawers I go through his house like that that's violating his rights and he has the right to put a lawsuit against them and get get his gun back plus not only that he can get them fired they shouldn't have went through his house like that they don't look in drawers they look for a burglar they look for burglar one somebody is either under a bed or in a closet or something like that they cannot go through your house like that this for unless they have a search warrant and they did not have a search warrant they was looking for a burglar so they committed a crime their cells
They were already searching his things before they found the pistol? This makes the gun being in eye shot invalidate their search! They just wanted to go through his things . These cops are wrong in a big way.
After eliminating the possibility of "burglary", they should have left the residence - NOT poked through the contents of the property looking for something (anything) to arrest the resident(s) on. Yet they did. Any evidence of criminal behavior discovered AFTER clearing the house of "burglary" is poisoned fruit and should be NOT admissible. Bob Willis is a liar.
Cops need to be trained to the same level as lawyers and take test to maintain their qualifications. Not know if they can continue searching the house is a lame excuse. If you break the law because you did not know the law, you are told ignorance of the law is no excuse. The same should hold true for Leo ignorance of the law, they lose the certification to be a peace officer
On 4/45/22, another Milwaukee TV station did a story about MPD forcing a cop to resign because she got $3,000 of educational benefits from MPD and VA, which apparently is illegal. Why is it that these 3 cops have faced no disciplinary action at all for this illegal search and seizure? Answer: Sanctioned and condoned by MPD policy-makers.
Just what was it that made them believe the gun was stolen? Is it illegal to have a gun in your home there? If not, how about leaving it and the homeowner alone?
I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they thought a burglar would have left his gun in a cabinet and ran away without taking anything before they got there.... assuming that absurdity is true, then why wouldn't they just ask the homeowner if it was his gun? If he said no, and only if he said no, would I think they would be legally justified in running the numbers on it.
@@redonk1740 why would a burglar have a gun? that would enhance his penalty 5-fold, (assuming MPD caught him/her which MPD never does). compare Armed-robbery v. robbery sentencing.
Nah im sorry but the guy who said that the police were ok to do what they were doing does not apply in this case. They were on call to a burlgary, therefore by definition, they should have been looking for "Someone" not "Something". Something does not burgle a house, unless it was a robot, then it could be classed as "Something". But in this case, its a person they are looking for, not an object. They should have looked through the house, find the person and arrest them, or if not finding the person, make sure the house was made secure for the resident and that is that. I also do not like the comments the police made on video either. That was very discriminatory towards the house owner. They do not know who he is and they even had the audacity to laugh about it as well... Sick police officers who should be fired for not upholding a high standard of professionalism in the duty of their job.
Of course a training officer is going to protect those he may have trained is obvious. Don't make a statement in an interview that may be against a possible lapse in training, if in fact the officers even attended all of their training.
It would be awesome if part of the officers punishment were for their victim, in this case, to go through their homes, while they had to stand in the yard…helpless. Just like this man was because he was out of town. This is a blatant overreach. And if any cop EVER says, “I don’t know why people hate cops”….this video should be shown to them. And there are thousands more of these videos all across the country. FTP.
Most of the people that blindly support the police will never even look at these video's, it will shatter their illusion of good cops, or they will say that there are a few bad apples. There are a lot more than a few bad apples.
This has to stop. Just because it is a gun all of the sudden they think they have the authority to seize it. It's in plain view, so what? Guns are not illegal. They could do the same with anything if what they did was legal, steak knives, shoes, hammers, stereos, anything. Good thing it was not $500.00 they would have taken that as well.
Exactly. Plain view = cops legally there, and they see it without manipulation (I.e. they cannot look in a shoe box because a burglar cannot hide in one), and lastly it MUST be clearly illegal such that they believe he is guilty. Even IF they had articulable facts such as a certain type and color gun with something like a rare marking reported as stolen and that one matched, they would have only reasonable articulable suspicion, which is still NOT probable cause or a warrant the standard needed for a search or arrest.
So, he is a consultant, right? Check for persons and secure the home by locating someone who can. Not go in and start searching and turn the victim into a criminal.
Guns aren’t plainly illegal anyway. Even If the firearm was left out on the coffee table, it’s not illegal. Plain view doctrine only applies to patently illegal items.
That person that is doing the training is getting the department sued. Fire his obviously ineffective training of off8cers. Again another department in bad need of a thorough investigation from agency OUTSIDE.
Wtf is this expert talking about, the search was clearly illegal. They were there under exigent circumstances due to a report of a burglary. Once they determined that the burglary hasn't taken place they should have gotten the fuck out.
you know what to do don’t call the police to your house that you will get burglarized twice! Or thrown in the cage they are not our friends remember this.
That consultant is full of s*** they absolutely violated this man's Fourth amendment rights they had absolutely no lawful reason to search his house for anything other than a burglar.
u r on the jury! cop attorney will file their reply to my reply their summary judgement motion on Jan 27, 2022. and then, this annoying police misconduct case will by quickly disposed of.
good point. but Eastern District of Milwaukee can't consider Canig v. Strom because the case on the video is at Quali Immunity stage, and Caniglia was decided AFTER the case on the video. However, the Eastern District of Milwaukee can and SHOULD be able to consider Milwaukee's version of Canig v. Strom, which is Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, from about 2013. Sutterfield is Identical to Caniglia, for the most part. 7th Court of Appeals wrote a beautiful 30-40 page decision where they reluctantly gave the PoliceCops QI.
This is a pretty egregious violation by the police here. HOW LONG are we the people going to tolerate this behavior? When is ENOUGH ENOUGH?! Elect officials who will drain the swamp for real!
Definitely a violation of rights they are looking for a burglar nothing else ! The fact that they then went through the victims things IS a violation !
I don't see the reason to let Law Enforcements in to Someone home or Property, the should be able to prevent any Law Renforcement whensoever to get in a Citizen dweller with or without a warrant, to avoid children, or innocent adulte to be traumatized when they see Guns are pointed at them. Some of them have had lost their live like that.
They shouldn't have been in the house to begin with. There was no one in the home that needed any assistance in any way shape or form. They were in the wrong and anything they found would be constitutionally illegal. Plain and simple.
Searching and running a gun is outside the scope because they have no reason to believe the gun is unlawful even if it is in plain-view. It would be like running red serial number on a TV because it’s in plain view it’s nuts.
More time?. This should take 2 minutes. They entered the home checking for a burglar. Did not find a intruder then started searching the homeowners property without a Warrent. This is a clear, blatant violation of the Constitution. But according to the "expert?" they can violate all day long and be settled later in court. Really dude? Even if they saw a pound of cocaine sitting in the middle of the room they're to leave it right there. They had no Warrent to be searching for anything of the homeowner.
So if police can’t get a search warrant they can just have a buddy call in a burglary or welfare check and voilà no warrant needed. This is absolutely nuts if you think about it.
And just maybe this clown that already had two frivolous lawsuits dismissed against the Police, just called in the Burglary himself to get the cops in his house to file a third law suit.
@@SaltyFailWhale A call of a Burglary is not necessarily going to allow LE to enter. What did they find upon arrival? Was a door open, window broken? Signs of a Burglary? Even with the report of a possible Burglary, LE is not usually going to break in if there are no signs of Burglary already.
Is there a wonder why so many cops are being attacked? Do these cops not realize they can and are being found? They have become the SS of so called law enforcement
This is nothing new. People have been complaining about this for years.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn you've clearly never had police respond to a burglary, they will always use it as an excuse to search your home
The expert is regularly paid by the police to advise them on procedures and the legality of what they do........no, he is paid by the police to basically support and justify everything they do, or he doesn't get paid to "consult" ever again.
@Boz Scaggs 1,000% sure his opinion is biased. If the journalist wanted an honest answer, he would have consulted a retired judge or attorney, not a man dependent on the police for his livelihood.
@@RuthPreach I teach search and seizure to police at both the academy and in service training. The "expert" is absolutely wrong on many counts.
He either doesn't understand basic principles or is unethical.
He got the scope of exigent circumstances wrong, community caretaking was shot down by courts, he misinterpreted plain view, and thinks if an officer sees something that may be contraband they get a full warrantless search of the entire resistance with no probable cause evidence of a maybe crime even existed. Unacceptable!!!
@@RuthPreach ummm.... did you read my post at all? Shame on me for agreeing the search was unlawful? Unbelievable!!!
@@jasonsherman5194 Please forgive my comment. I for mistook the word "expert" for auditor. I went ahead and deleted it. I'm glad to learn that even though I have just the basic knowledge of law, I too won't fall for their malarkey. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
House should of been haunted .. they would never do that ever again .. .. or they'll be trying to shoot the ghost 👻 👹
DEFINITELY DOESNT LOOK LIKE THESE COPS ARE LOOKING FOR A THIEF OR SOMEONE WHO BROKE IN!!!!!! COMPLETE BULLSH!T!!!!
I Agree. This looks like Revenge for filing complaints & suits on them. TYRANTS !!!
They were looking for any thing of value for property forfeiture. They are thugs, thiefs& gang members looking out for no one but themselves.
Unless they're looking for Tom Thumb. 🙄
All of these cops were supposed to be looking for a burglar not search through his personal belongings. This is just plain burglary while being a cop
This is clearly an illegal search. If it is found to be anything else it must be appealed until justice is achieved.
Please explain in detail your credentials for stating this is clearly an illegal search and not just your opinion.
@@josephhodges9819 one doesn't need credentials to know an illegal act. do you need someone with credentials to tell you that stealing a car or any other criminal act that it's illegal?
@@jeremynolan852 Apples and Oranges. If you are going to state it as fact then I want to know exactly what your credentials are. You use stealing a car as an example but what if the car is running and blocking your driveway and you get in the car and move it just enough to unblock your driveway. In some jurisdictions moving the car is considered theft but in some areas just moving it an inch can be considered theft. Millions of people do fantasy football and even winning $10 can be considered illegal gambling and hence a felony.
@@josephhodges9819 You made The credentials fallacy . A logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant. You don't need any credentials to know theft is against the law. You don't need any credentials to know murder, rape or anything else that it's illegal to do so. Also no need for a hypothetical since we have a video showing what happened. Also a jury needs no special credentials to judge someone is guilty of a crime.
@@jeremynolan852 Took you a bit to find something to counteract what I said. Congratulations. The problem is that the first person stated an opinion that they formed to infer it was a fact so I call their argument out. I still call BS on their comment so there you go, everyone has opinions and conjectures but no facts.
I pray that he takes them for everything. That law enforcement “consultant” is clearly useless
Useless to citizens but very useful to law enforcement. 🤨
When I called ambulances for my elderly parents, the cops always came as well. That wasn’t a problem until I found out they were searching their home when I wasn’t there one time. We have a massive safe in the garage and my mom said that one cop said to the other “I’d sure like to see inside that safe!” They tried to get my mom to open it, but she didn’t know how and my dad was in the ambulance. That police department has a long history of stealing firearms and you have to hire an expensive lawyer to get them returned.
Cash too. Now they're even starting to hit armored cars.
Dirt naps.
The cops were searching his possessions before they found the gun when they should have only been searching for a burglar.
Intentionally did it and lied. Broke into his house literally
Way beyond looking for a burglar, they were opening cabinets, looking for something to steal
Elsewhere on UA-cam there's annotated body camera footage where the victim alleges that one of the officers conducting the search found a collection football or baseball cards, and that the valuable cards that were in the collection were later found to be missing from the collection.
Right, stealing is the only reason you think cops would be opening cabinets. Sorry but that is what you would be doing it for. They thought they did not have a search warrant and were looking for illegal items.
So that's how the _"Plain View"_ doctrine works. Once the cops crack open a homeowner's safe, the cash and valuables inside are now in _"Plain View"_ and free for the taking. 😃
I love ex cop experts. They were lawfully in there but seriously plainview doesn't allow opening cupboards or cabinets. That's an illegal search.
Incorrect. The potential burglar may have been Peter Dinklage and he may have been hiding in that little cabinet behind the pots.
That guy is telling them how they use to do things back in the day before cameras and people knowing their rights
It would IF without manipulation the object can be seen I.e. through a glass cabinet. The problem is the item has to be clear contraband, and firearms are simply legal unless stolen, so they had no right to remove it or run it even if they could see it because they had no probable cause or a warrant. That’s right they need to genuinely believe he is guilty of firearms theft to have PC
3:09/T0:59:37Z clearing and sweeping. ; :46/T01:03:19Z "I cleared it", meaning the protective sweep is over. ; 2:59/T01:09:34Z they find gun in cabinet. which begs the question - why are they still in the house after clearing and Buie Sweeping the house? finding gun is fruit of "poisionus tree". 1:58/T01:13::44Z guns serial # not reported as stolen in NCIC
Should sue for all camera footage, the guy who went in first opened everything himself.
@@carolinusTG i agree. but,i did not sue any police in missouri
This guy didn't just get his house broken into by a burglar the police broke in and did just as much damage if not more damage to the guy's property yeah you need to sue the hell out of blood with the police department they're the ones that broke the law
Why did the cops take property when looking for a burgler....sounds like the cops were the burglers to me.
Interesting how the mainstream media can always find a pro-police apologist (presented as here as a disinterested expert) who will justify police actions, then juxtapose the apologist's account with the claims of the victim. I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of legal experts who would be available to provide a counter-factual to the pro-police explanation. The method of presentation here sets up an implicit bias against the victim when the average viewer is attempting to assess the rights and wrongs of the situation.
It's how they've created the police state, using propaganda.
What does the backstream media say about it?
Mainstream media? WTF does that mean?
@@IggnantOG, look up the word mainstream media, if you don't know what that is, then you haven't seen the light.
Is there a record of a phone call reporting a burglary or did they make that up? Has the victim's firearm been returned. Sue them!
I hope you get a jury full of people like me, it will cost the city millions
That courtroom expert needs to get some better eyes because they violated his Fourth Amendment right like you wouldn't believe
If cops are investigating a break in and they searched, found nothing....they're done and should have been out the door, securing the house but leaving a note advising what happened.....
Them snooping around, looking in cabinets and such is a violation of tge 4th Amendment.....These cops along with the chief should read it sometime....soon!!
Illegal, if the search was legal, why is there a search warrant process? Individuals who claim it was a textbook situation need to go back and read some more textbooks, mainly the Constitution Individual who are paid to serve and protect should be held to a higher standard, we are not paying these individuals to terrorizers citizens.
No where in the Fourth Amendment (Constitution) does it say a search warrant is necessary to search anything. Maybe you should actually read it.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn please tell me you're not that fucking stupid.....
Abusing “extenuating circumstances’, true to form of most cops.
But think honestly, if you were the chief or even just their supervisor, would want to be responsible for cops that are stupid enough to record themselves making such stupid comments?
The search was illegal, that’s obvious, so they used the technicality to get inside, but then they violated the homeowners rights by looking in shoe box size areas for a grown burglar.
In cases like this, there should be a citizens survey/poll done. Do you want to pay for cops this ignorant of the law? Then, majority rules whether they get fired or stay.
I’d rather they be fired than be responsible for cover any lawsuits these clowns cause.
This is not community caretaking this is called black management of law enforcement.
This is why you never let officers in or answer questions. They will bend the law to be able to do what they want and when they want. There was no reason to do a property search when they should have been conducting a person’s search. I’m sure if you look into these officer’s records you will find misconduct or reports of it.
They were not let in, they followed the path of a break-in. And they CONTINUED the break-in.
@@leef_me8112 they claimed there had been a break in. One of their buddies may have called it in so they had a reason to conduct a warrantless search.
@@Taylorchef I can't disagree.
The "expert" has no integrity. There is no way the search is lawful beyond the exigent circumstances. After it was determined no emergency existed the search was supposed to end. The police decided to search for contraband beyond the scope of the original search. Even if they located the gun during the initial search, there is 3 prongs to Plainview. Officer has to be in a lawful place at time the contraband was seen, it must be seen without manipulation, and it must be readily apparent the item is contraband. The video clearly shows manipulation and the officers comments show it was not apparent it was even unlawful.
Assuming the police observed the pistol on Plainview during the exigent circumstance search (they didn't) and they knew it was unlawful, It would only give them cause to seize the pistol not to continue to search. The search should have stopped and if the police had probable cause there was more evidence, they could apply for a search warrant.
go to 2:00 in the video. cop3 asks "did it come back"? cop1 says "no, blah blah, not for the MAKE of it". Cop2 say "Then, its " (not stolen)." The TV station (and the cop attorneys, presumably) collaborated to cut the ("not stolen") from the video. They conducted a second query that is not shown on the video, because I probably forgot to give them video from Cop1 body cam. In that query, they never gave the dispatch officer the MAKE of the pistol. I guess everyone in Milwaukee is afraid of MPD, even the media. Also, according to Mincey v. Arizona, "NO WARRANTLESS SEARCH CAN CONTINUE OR BEGIN AFTER THE EXIGENCY ENDS". Mr. Sherman, you know law.
The full body cams are well worth watching….horrible police work
This is the same type of attitude thatblead to the shooting of an elder man in his house who can't hear very well and has a flashlight from an officer shining it in the elder man's eyes. I'm tired of these officers making excuse for their negligent acts and doing what the want without any regard for the law that they are sworn to up hold
Personally,, I don't trust law enforcement anymore.
Those cops should be charged!
Those cops exceeded their mission and they knew it, they were on a fishing expedition, just listen to the disrespectful banter , there was zero officer safety or “caretaker “ functions at play here ! ex State Trooper here.
This is why we need to remove her immunity and require mall to carry their own personal million-dollar Bond this way they'll be held responsible for their actions
"he doesn't know what we can and can't do" this lawsuit is open and shut and they won't get qualified immunity
Well they was there for a burglary they wasn't there to look in his drawers I go through his house like that that's violating his rights and he has the right to put a lawsuit against them and get get his gun back plus not only that he can get them fired they shouldn't have went through his house like that they don't look in drawers they look for a burglar they look for burglar one somebody is either under a bed or in a closet or something like that they cannot go through your house like that this for unless they have a search warrant and they did not have a search warrant they was looking for a burglar so they committed a crime their cells
They were already searching his things before they found the pistol? This makes the gun being in eye shot invalidate their search! They just wanted to go through his things . These cops are wrong in a big way.
After eliminating the possibility of "burglary", they should have left the residence - NOT poked through the contents of the property looking for something (anything) to arrest the resident(s) on.
Yet they did.
Any evidence of criminal behavior discovered AFTER clearing the house of "burglary" is poisoned fruit and should be NOT admissible.
Bob Willis is a liar.
A dew bad apples? Cause it seems the be the whole orchard
🐷 oink oink!
Cops need to be trained to the same level as lawyers and take test to maintain their qualifications. Not know if they can continue searching the house is a lame excuse.
If you break the law because you did not know the law, you are told ignorance of the law is no excuse. The same should hold true for Leo ignorance of the law, they lose the certification to be a peace officer
He a training expert not a constitutional expert
On 4/45/22, another Milwaukee TV station did a story about MPD forcing a cop to resign because she got $3,000 of educational benefits from MPD and VA, which apparently is illegal. Why is it that these 3 cops have faced no disciplinary action at all for this illegal search and seizure? Answer: Sanctioned and condoned by MPD policy-makers.
They have no right to enter the house, search it only makes it worse.
That trainer must be fired yesterday. He has NO respect for the 4th.
He's teaching these rookies to behave like criminals.
Just what was it that made them believe the gun was stolen? Is it illegal to have a gun in your home there? If not, how about leaving it and the homeowner alone?
I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they thought a burglar would have left his gun in a cabinet and ran away without taking anything before they got there.... assuming that absurdity is true, then why wouldn't they just ask the homeowner if it was his gun? If he said no, and only if he said no, would I think they would be legally justified in running the numbers on it.
@@redonk1740 why would a burglar have a gun? that would enhance his penalty 5-fold, (assuming MPD caught him/her which MPD never does). compare Armed-robbery v. robbery sentencing.
So the police didn’t admit they stole a gun, even when the body-cam shows them stealing a gun. The arrogance is astonishing.
4th amendment violation .
Yep more dirty cops!!!
Milwaukee and Minneapolis Police need to all be fired!
Nah im sorry but the guy who said that the police were ok to do what they were doing does not apply in this case. They were on call to a burlgary, therefore by definition, they should have been looking for "Someone" not "Something". Something does not burgle a house, unless it was a robot, then it could be classed as "Something". But in this case, its a person they are looking for, not an object. They should have looked through the house, find the person and arrest them, or if not finding the person, make sure the house was made secure for the resident and that is that. I also do not like the comments the police made on video either. That was very discriminatory towards the house owner. They do not know who he is and they even had the audacity to laugh about it as well... Sick police officers who should be fired for not upholding a high standard of professionalism in the duty of their job.
Both of these officers MUST be fired and Jailed!
Of course a training officer is going to protect those he may have trained is obvious. Don't make a statement in an interview that may be against a possible lapse in training, if in fact the officers even attended all of their training.
It would be awesome if part of the officers punishment were for their victim, in this case, to go through their homes, while they had to stand in the yard…helpless. Just like this man was because he was out of town. This is a blatant overreach. And if any cop EVER says, “I don’t know why people hate cops”….this video should be shown to them. And there are thousands more of these videos all across the country. FTP.
Most of the people that blindly support the police will never even look at these video's, it will shatter their illusion of good cops, or they will say that there are a few bad apples. There are a lot more than a few bad apples.
This has to stop. Just because it is a gun all of the sudden they think they have the authority to seize it. It's in plain view, so what? Guns are not illegal. They could do the same with anything if what they did was legal, steak knives, shoes, hammers, stereos, anything. Good thing it was not $500.00 they would have taken that as well.
Exactly. Plain view = cops legally there, and they see it without manipulation (I.e. they cannot look in a shoe box because a burglar cannot hide in one), and lastly it MUST be clearly illegal such that they believe he is guilty. Even IF they had articulable facts such as a certain type and color gun with something like a rare marking reported as stolen and that one matched, they would have only reasonable articulable suspicion, which is still NOT probable cause or a warrant the standard needed for a search or arrest.
That consultant is part of the problem.
Oh our lawyer says we have done nothing wrong. What do you think the lawyer was going to say?. The police in this country are out of control for sure.
Prime example of why you should never call the police.
Sting this Police Department for illegal search beyond the scope of the warrant!!!
The us supreme court ruled on this long ago.
So, he is a consultant, right? Check for persons and secure the home by locating someone who can. Not go in and start searching and turn the victim into a criminal.
they TRIED to turn the burglary victim into a criminal. but the burglary victim exposed the cops and their criminal actions.
Good on that guy, stand up for your rights because if you don't you will lose them.
It WAS illegal.
Did anyone notice how unsafe the one cop was when he pointed the gun he found at himself while trying to put it in a pocket of his vest?
Bob Willis is a bad example of a consultant.
anyone can see that glass cabinet was the perfect place for a burglar to hide
Guns aren’t plainly illegal anyway. Even If the firearm was left out on the coffee table, it’s not illegal. Plain view doctrine only applies to patently illegal items.
I'm not so sure the gun was in plain view. What size was the burglar they were searching for?
Fruit of poisonous tree. Plain doctrine does not apply
That person that is doing the training is getting the department sued. Fire his obviously ineffective training of off8cers. Again another department in bad need of a thorough investigation from agency OUTSIDE.
I think the search was performed illegally and I believe the dialogue of the investigating officers during their search bears that out.
I guess people should put bear traps and poison darts in your home to stop thieves from entering.
Cops are jealous of what the man has and doesn’t think 🤔 he should have
I remember this video where a cop stole gun stuff from a dead persons home.
They were wrong.
Sue them crooks!
Qualified Immunity. That's why they do what they do. Sovereign citizens
Wtf is this expert talking about, the search was clearly illegal. They were there under exigent circumstances due to a report of a burglary. Once they determined that the burglary hasn't taken place they should have gotten the fuck out.
How was it in plain view when they’re illegally in the house.
you know what to do don’t call the police to your house that you will get burglarized twice! Or thrown in the cage they are not our friends remember this.
In this case, the police aren't doing anything that thieves don't normally do when they've entered your house without permission.
They went there for a burglary but instead search his house law suite
Cops are searching his home. Cops do not have a warrant. Explain how it was not illegal?
This expert is crooked as the police they all work together sue them in federal court
That absolutely is civil rights violations
That consultant is full of s*** they absolutely violated this man's Fourth amendment rights they had absolutely no lawful reason to search his house for anything other than a burglar.
This is why your 2A and “back the blue” stickers DONT mix!
Never waive time. Always demand a quick and speedy trial. It is your right. If you waive time once, the prosecutor can ask for time until he's grey
I hope he wins a case agianst the city... millions across America needs to jam the courts with constitutional violated lawsuits.. break the fucn bank
Put me on that jury!!!
1st degree burglary!!
u r on the jury! cop attorney will file their reply to my reply their summary judgement motion on Jan 27, 2022. and then, this annoying police misconduct case will by quickly disposed of.
It's on video. Open and close case!!
Caniglia v Strom out of Cranston RI, decided by SCOTUS in early 2021. These cops are going to wish those tyrants in Cranston never took Caniglia's gun
good point. but Eastern District of Milwaukee can't consider Canig v. Strom because the case on the video is at Quali Immunity stage, and Caniglia was decided AFTER the case on the video. However, the Eastern District of Milwaukee can and SHOULD be able to consider Milwaukee's version of Canig v. Strom, which is Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee, from about 2013. Sutterfield is Identical to Caniglia, for the most part. 7th Court of Appeals wrote a beautiful 30-40 page decision where they reluctantly gave the PoliceCops QI.
This is a pretty egregious violation by the police here. HOW LONG are we the people going to tolerate this behavior? When is ENOUGH ENOUGH?! Elect officials who will drain the swamp for real!
These sovereign citizens with badges need stopped.
THE COPS WERE ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN MY OPINION...THIS IS WRONG.
Yes they need to be fired
That "expert" seems to be clueless.
Opening doors and cabinets is not plain view
Definitely a violation of rights they are looking for a burglar nothing else ! The fact that they then went through the victims things IS a violation !
I don't see the reason to let Law Enforcements in to Someone home or Property, the should be able to prevent any Law Renforcement whensoever to get in a Citizen dweller with or without a warrant, to avoid children, or innocent adulte to be traumatized when they see Guns are pointed at them. Some of them have had lost their live like that.
Was this the house that was broken in to?
They shouldn't have been in the house to begin with. There was no one in the home that needed any assistance in any way shape or form. They were in the wrong and anything they found would be constitutionally illegal. Plain and simple.
Cops being cops
Searching and running a gun is outside the scope because they have no reason to believe the gun is unlawful even if it is in plain-view. It would be like running red serial number on a TV because it’s in plain view it’s nuts.
Let's all sue our city's
The guys is full of it ,they can't enter a home without a warrent
The "police consultant" is not an attorney just some retired cop paid to find a way to justify police action.
Go after them. Everything is ok everything is legal regardless
Bob Willis needs to learn and shouldn't be teaching anyone anything
More time?. This should take 2 minutes. They entered the home checking for a burglar. Did not find a intruder then started searching the homeowners property without a Warrent. This is a clear, blatant violation of the Constitution. But according to the "expert?" they can violate all day long and be settled later in court. Really dude?
Even if they saw a pound of cocaine sitting in the middle of the room they're to leave it right there. They had no Warrent to be searching for anything of the homeowner.