Comments on: Decatur Proactive Policing Continues

By: J_T

J_T — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:03:45 +0000

I’m sure you mean this pejoratively, but even so, please be accurate. It’s CRIMINAL defense attorney, sir. Calling me a plain old defense attorney could lead to confusion and may even be considered slanderous if folks take it to mean INSURANCE defense attorney. A more accurate description would be TRIAL LAWYER, which those insurance companies and Republican tort deformers have done such a good job demonizing that I’m sure you will read this, chuckle to yourself and be even more reaffirmed in your sense of superiority.

By: karass

karass — Fri, 13 May 2011 12:46:02 +0000

By the way, even though the Decatur Police are welcome to join us for dinner, Scrabble, TV, whatever anytime, preferably with a knock first but not necessary if we are stupid enough to leave our doors open to let in the mosquitos and let out the air conditioning, I cannot agree with calling folks on this blog “Whiners”. The correct name, if you read all the threads over time, is “Diners”.

By: whiners

whiners — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:11:53 +0000

must be a defense attorney……

By: J_T

J_T — Fri, 13 May 2011 04:53:35 +0000

Well, I guess I’m the guy sleeping on the job! Sorry, it’s been a long week. Here’s the short answer: Sheep Dog laid out a red herring. It’s not a question of whether the officer(s) committed the offenses of criminal trespass or entering an auto. They did not, as the intent element is crucial. Sorry Brianc, but the State absolutely must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including intent, to convict. Circumstantial evidence may be enough, but they must still prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard is often confused with the standard police need to arrest somebody, which is merely probable cause.

On the other hand, an officer entering an auto (or home, or any other private property) without a warrant, probable cause to arrest or reasonable articulable suspicion that some crime has been, or is being committed, is most certainly committing an illegal act. It is ILLEGAL because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

It’s late and I’ve got court in the morning but I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions about this later on. Unless of course the questions are from Whiners, in which case I gladly cede the floor to Cubalibre…

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Fri, 13 May 2011 00:38:24 +0000

I was also a little surprised we never got clarity on the legal/illegal point.