• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

'No excuses,' Jefferson County sheriff says after deputy smears homeowner's surveillance camera with mud

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
IMPERIAL • The Jefferson County sheriff’s office has apologized on social media after a deputy used mud to cover an outdoor surveillance camera at a private home.

And all cops are not bad? To broad a term? The other deputy stood there and did nothing. The sheriff does not mention the other deputy doing nothing in his apology.

Result of the "investigation" will be a sternly worded Post-It Note for the offender and no consequences for the other deputy. Cops are being taught from the get go to violate the laws. With little to fear of any meaningful consequences this behavior will continue.

STLToday requires that AD blockers be disabled to read the article.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Was this not a violation of the civil rights of the homeowner? The deputy was clearly acting on his own and not implementing department policy. Surely immunity is pierced. The homeowner should sue.

We need to sue more cops. Let ‘em know we will not tolerate their misbehavior, even seemingly minor ones, even if the departments do.

I am tired of cops being a special privileged class of citizen. Except in very specific circumstances, police have no more authority over others than we do. They need to be kept in their constitutional box.
 

FreedomVA

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
591
Location
FreedomVA
Wish i have them POWERS and IMMUNITY :( How come i don't see Neighborhood Watch coming around?
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
We The People continue to belive that cops can do no wrong...until we witness them doing wrong...even then juries believe cops can do no wrong...circular, no?
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
And all cops are not bad?

That is 100% correct. All cops are NOT bad. In fact MOST are not bad. They are a lot like gun owners in that regard.

We can discuss the issue and the specific bad acts of the officer involved but it is against the forum rules to bash law enforcement as a whole because of the actions of a few.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
“All the glitters is not gold.”

Old Bill never took a class in logic. By his famous line (actually using the word “glisters”), he states that gold is not gold because it is included in “all that glitters”.

It probably would not have fit the meter he was going for, but “Not all that glitters is gold” is the logically correct phraseology that means what he intended.

I say all that to say this: Not all cops are bad.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Was this not a violation of the civil rights of the homeowner? The deputy was clearly acting on his own and not implementing department policy. Surely immunity is pierced. The homeowner should sue.

We need to sue more cops. Let ‘em know we will not tolerate their misbehavior, even seemingly minor ones, even if the departments do.

I am tired of cops being a special privileged class of citizen. Except in very specific circumstances, police have no more authority over others than we do. They need to be kept in their constitutional box.

do you watch first amendment audits on youtube? get your popcorn
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
383
Location
Planet Earth
Add this fact to the mix - the "parole violater" they were after is the woman's ex who hasn't lived there for 6 years.

Nothing like a little outdated info. That's why some cops have been known to break down the wrong door.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
That one is on the registered sex offender (not just “parole violator”) who failed to update his residence with the registry as required by law. The outdated information is not the cops’ fault.

Also, I would advise anyone who has lived with a person while he or she was on the registry to keep an eye on the registry entry to make sure that the offender is not falsely claiming that address.

The cops knocking on that particular door should not be an issue. The rest of their behavior is!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
That one is on the registered sex offender (not just “parole violator”) who failed to update his residence with the registry as required by law. The outdated information is not the cops’ fault. ..
The home owner informed the sheriff's office that the ex did not reside there. When? No longer relevant at this juncture. The sheriff acknowledges that the homeowner made this claim. If this is true and the SO continues to check the residence after being informed then the SO is not without fault. It may be unlikely that the SO will admit that they have been doing wrong since the first report that the ex no longer resides there. Par for the course.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The home owner informed the sheriff's office that the ex did not reside there. When? No longer relevant at this juncture. The sheriff acknowledges that the homeowner made this claim. If this is true and the SO continues to check the residence after being informed then the SO is not without fault. It may be unlikely that the SO will admit that they have been doing wrong since the first report that the ex no longer resides there. Par for the course.

If the offender’s ex-wife has officially notified the police that the offender no longer lives at her address and that her address should be removed from the registry, you have a point. Simply telling the officer or deputy at the door, “He ain’t here,” or, “He doesn’t live here anymore,” shouldn’t stop a reasonable number of reasonably conducted visits.

If she takes the time to make the official request to have her address removed from the registry, meaning that she is risking prosecution if her claim turns out to be false, then, yeah, the cops should stop coming around.

But as long as that address remains on the registry (after being place on it lawfully), and it should remain unless she officially asks for it to be removed, then reasonable visits are in order.

I am not excusing the behavior of the cops. Their actions unreasonably violated the Rights of the lady who lives at that address, despite the knock on the door likely being perfectly reasonable.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,174
Location
here nc
If the offender’s ex-wife has officially notified the police that the offender no longer lives at her address and that her address should be removed from the registry, you have a point. Simply telling the officer or deputy at the door, “He ain’t here,” or, “He doesn’t live here anymore,” shouldn’t stop a reasonable number of reasonably conducted visits.

If she takes the time to make the official request to have her address removed from the registry, meaning that she is risking prosecution if her claim turns out to be false, then, yeah, the cops should stop coming around.

But as long as that address remains on the registry (after being place on it lawfully), and it should remain unless she officially asks for it to be removed, then reasonable visits are in order.

I am not excusing the behavior of the cops. Their actions unreasonably violated the Rights of the lady who lives at that address, despite the knock on the door likely being perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, reasonable visits?

If the nice LE’s mistakenly put YOUR home address on a ‘list’ as a drug house [or worse lied like the recent incident where kind souls died and others got injured] or some clerk transposed numbers on the sex or parole register, you mean it is YOUR responsibility to change it.

I am certain LEs always will listen to some homeowner lamenting their residence is not a drug house or ‘no the registry has the worng number’ or ‘no the parolee never lived here’ from citizens.

Further, ‘reasonable’ visits to LEs means any hour of the day or night they deem appropriate.

Perfectly reasonable...really.

No there is a glitch in the system but it is one of many agencies exercise against its masters.

PS; there are 73 +/- federal agencies that have full-time armed officers with warrant granting and arresting authority with at least 250 full-time officers e.g., the Dept of Education, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Mint, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Veterans Health Administration, to name but a few.

So who are you going to notify about the typo or my house isn’t etc>
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
I agree, a "get off my lawn" type of statement while deputies are present is not a official notice. Then again, if the homeowner made the effort to contact the SO as she claims, and the SO "learns" that she did, since the sheriff is giving her the benefit of the doubt at this juncture on her claim and is investigating her claim, that is formal enough for me if she in fact did make at least one request.

In Missouri a sex offender must update/verify his address annually, or semiannually, or every 90 days for the worst offenders. The offender has the burden to keep his address, and other required data, current. Changing the data in person at the SO within three days of the change is the statutory requirement.

It is reasonable to conclude that the ex did not follow the law at this point, and giving the deputies the benefit of the doubt it is possible that they may not have done their due diligence or a "clerical oversight."

It is not reasonable for the SO to have made some unknown number of "visits" without making contact at least once at the registered address in the past six years.


The home owner does not have, nor should she be expected to bear the burden of removing her address from the SO's database. If the SO is interested in the ex they need to put a wee bit more effort into finding the violent sex offender and updating their database.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
While the homeowner does not bear the burden of having her address removed from the registry, if she does not take definitive action to have the address removed, she can expect LE to routinely knock on her door. If she says, “The offender does not live here. Go away,” then the officers or deputies should promptly and quietly go away and get an arrest warrant for the offender.

If she wants to guarantee no future visits, she should take that up with the agency that administers the list—which is almost certainly not the sheriff’s office. As long as her address remains on the registry, all manner of LEA will use that listing to justify visiting her home, and she will have to tell them to go away again.
_

That being said, we have to wonder if the sheriff isn’t asking folks to register the home surveillance systems so he can send deputies around to mud them!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
While the homeowner does not bear the burden of having her address removed from the registry, if she does not take definitive action to have the address removed, she can expect LE to routinely knock on her door. If she says, “The offender does not live here. Go away,” then the officers or deputies should promptly and quietly go away and get an arrest warrant for the offender.
Agreed.
If she wants to guarantee no future visits, she should take that up with the agency that administers the list—which is almost certainly not the sheriff’s office. As long as her address remains on the registry, all manner of LEA will use that listing to justify visiting her home, and she will have to tell them to go away again.
We do not know at this point if she has or has not made filed a "official" notification to the SO. She says she has informed them, the SO has not disputed this, at this point. The SO is the agency per RSMo 589.400 thru 589.425.
That being said, we have to wonder if the sheriff isn’t asking folks to register the home surveillance systems so he can send deputies around to mud them!
;)

Getting a search warrant would seem a risk that the SO would be advised to not accept. This incident is in the news and the SO must tread very lightly. She has retained a attorney and has stated that the sheriff's apology will not effect a satisfactory remedy. The mudding of the camera clearly indicates that those three deputies are not interested in her safety nor her private property rights.

All three of them should be demoted to clerical duties for a minimum of one year, with commensurate pay. Then a review with possible reinstatement. Or, the sheriff could fire those three nitwits for their nittwittery and label them as unemployable as LEOs, my preferred option.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,174
Location
here nc
Ironic...


OC for ME did you read the SO’s fine print...
Quote
The information you provide regarding your security camera system will be for official use only. Your personal information will remain confidential and will not be distributed except as required by law or court order.

If necessary,
the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office will contact you directly, using the information provided by you at the time of registration, to request the appropriate video surveillance footage. Any video surveillance footage containing or related to criminal activity collected by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office may be used as evidence during any stage of a criminal proceeding. Unquote

So video and addy it came from cannot be obtained by freedom of information?

Video used could not be easily triangulated to locate which home it came from?

If necessary the SO contact the home owner directly, uh how else would/could SO obtain the video footage?

Who’s keeping allllll those records of where cams are installed safe from prying eyes, including from within the organization?

Finally, if the judical system now has specific locations of cameras, and a homeowner opts out, can the court’s order the surrender of private security videos?

Hummm shades of 1949’s Orwell’s classic becoming reality!

[data kept safe by judical system hummm...fm Denver Post https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/21/pot-shop-robbery-witness-killing/ [quote ...death illustrates the danger of a statewide clerical issue that first was identified last year in Arapahoe County. An investigation by the judicial system found 1,500 cases in a one-year period statewide where arrest and discovery documents were erroneously released to the wrong people.unquote]
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
We can discuss the issue and the specific bad acts of the officer involved but it is against the forum rules to bash law enforcement as a whole because of the actions of a few.

Just be careful in case Reality ever comes a-knockin' at the door. I would never want to lump LE together as a whole, but neither is the problem with just a few. Right now I would estimate the portion of LEs who have run amok one way or the other at 60%. Big problem.
 
Top