"Respect My Authority!"

One of the biggest dangers I have found in our free society is abuse or misuse of authority. We see this just about every day. I think one universal aspect of all conservatives is that we want less governmental involvement in our lives. We think this way for good reason: the more power the government has, the more likely they are to abuse it. Our Constitution was drafted to strengthen individual rights; those that the government could not take away under any circumstances. This is not as cut and dried as it sounds.

I would focus this rant specifically on a local branch of the government; one that everyone has probably had some dealings with in the past. This will not be praiseworthy, and will probably draw some ire. I will also lament the lack of positive attention on another segment of our population; one that most laymen despise.

It is not my intention to denigrate police officers as a whole. They perform a difficult job, in which their very lives are in danger on a daily basis. They have in their ranks some of the finest people in the world, who would never do any of the things I will mention here. As a whole, however, they are probably prone to abuse their authority more than any other public servant. The sad thing is, most Americans turn a blind eye to it, unless they are directly affected.

One of the problems with police officers is that they are not paid enough. The low pay scale means that the best and brightest can be discouraged from the service. This is not to say that there are not dedicated, talented individuals who do the job. There certainly are. Unfortunately, the number of those who serve because they feel a higher calling is limited.

I do not mean to stereotype; I speak from only my own experience. However, most of the law enforcement personnel in my hometown were ignorant bullies in school. They grew up to be ignorant bullies with badges and guns. All that was required was a high school education and completion of a police academy.

Their true colors ran deep. One classmate of mine should have never been given authority over a chamber pot, much less made a police officer. His career as a city policeman was marred by scandal. Somehow, he made it into the Texas Department of Public Safety, and became a highway patrolman. His career there was short-lived as well, for sexual scandal. Ironically, he was drummed out of the DPS for the same reasons he was fired as a city policeman. How in the world did he make the cut for a supposedly more elite unit?

I firmly believe lack of education is a critical factor in the abuses of power committed by police officers. Again, I draw this conclusion based only on personal observations. I have noticed that in bigger cities, where policemen are required to have college degrees, the abuses of power are much lower.

An additional problem arises with law enforcement. The presumption of innocence is sometimes lost. As a result, police often take drastic measures to make sure they nail the “bad guys,” even if it means they do something illegal. What is the harm if they put a bad person away, right? Why not plant some evidence? Why not break in without a warrant and search the place? Why not lie a little, if it means putting the bad guy away?

What if it is not a “bad guy” they have in their sights?

Take for instance a recent case, ripped straight out of the headlines. An elderly couple had accumulated several dogs over the course of their long lives. The woman bred show dogs. After years of raising dogs, the city police came out and instructed the couple to get rid of all but four of their animals within the city limits.

Initially, this was not a problem. The couple owned some land in the country, and they decided to relocate the dogs. However, these were not dogs that could be left in a pen outside. These small animals were used to being indoors, and would die outside quickly. The couple obtained an old semi-trailer, and converted it to house the dogs inside, within small cages. They went to the shelter several times a day to water and feed the animals, and to let them out for exercise. Since it was winter, they had to heat the shelter. They called the gas company to hook up a propane heater.

The gas worker reported to the county sheriff’s department that the couple were cruelly treating their animals, despite the fact that he did not observe the animals himself. The sheriff’s department tried to obtain a warrant to seize the animals.

Search and seizure warrants must be supported by probable cause. The sheriff’s department had none. They only had the gas worker’s supposition that animals were being abused. One judge refused a warrant based on this testimony. So an intrepid deputy took it upon himself to enter the couple’s property without their knowledge, consent, or a search warrant. The property was about 7 miles in the country. The deputy then walked 300+ yards from the front gate into a grove of trees to where the shelter was, unlatched the secured doors and entered the shelter. The shelter was not observable from the road. He then went back to town, and filled out another affidavit alleging animal abuse. He took the warrant to another judge, one that was only in office for less than two full months. The new judge happily signed the warrant.

Anybody care to take a guess whether or not the sheriff’s action was legal?

During this time, the couple went about their lives, with no knowledge of the hell they were about to go through.

The old couple then were surprised by a veritable circus. The sheriff’s department showed up en masse to seize their animals. All were taken away to the animal shelter. To add insult to injury, the sheriff’s department brought along a friendly reporter from the local newspaper, who snapped pictures, and wrote a very pro-law enforcement story. Much of which was factually incorrect.

Various motions to suppress the search warrant were filed. The problem was, the warrant was not on file anywhere. No copies of the supporting affidavit were conveniently located until the day of the trial on this matter. The officer who executed the warrant was conveniently sent out of town until the hearing. In the meanwhile, the county shelter “accidentally” executed the couple’s cat, who had also been seized in the raid.

A compromise was reached, and the couple were able to reclaim half of the animals seized, without the necessity of trial. Case law was somewhat ambiguous on the matter. There was a split of authority as to whether the county could retain custody of the animals, despite the fact they had been seized unlawfully. So they faced a real problem. Roll the dice and have a hearing, and possibly lose all the dogs? Or work a compromise, and get some of the animals back?

Bear in mind the dogs were elderly, some were over 20 years. These dogs were like members of the family. The deal brokered made sure that none of the animals were killed. All were to be adopted. The old couple had to spend time and money building cages the county deemed “humane.”

The couple also faced threats of whether or not the city would cite them for no proof of rabies vaccinations. These were dogs who only went outside to use the restroom.

This is abuse of authority, to put it mildly. The sheriff’s department seized the animals illegally. However, the couple still faced other legal consequences, even though they were the innocent party. They were forced to make a deal, or face the possibility of losing all their animals.

Had the sheriff’s deputy been schooled in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, there is a good possibility that he would have known his methods were illegal, to say the least. It didn’t really matter, in the end. Once the state had the couple in its clutches, they could bring all sorts of nasty pressure to bear on them.

This is why an educated police force isn’t a bad thing. This is also why criminal defense attorneys are the ultimate line of defense in keeping the government from becoming too powerful. If no one had forced the state’s hand, the couple would have been completely railroaded. They still got a raw deal, but it could have been much, much worse.

Criminal attorneys are universally despised. Everyone wonders why they can defend scumbags. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of defending not the person, but the rights that person has.
I believe that criminal defense attorneys are necessary to make the state jump through all of the proper hoops. If the rights of one criminal are taken away, it sets a precedent. Before too long, even innocent people are railroaded by law enforcement.

I hear the arguments and the justifications for this sort of action. The standard line is, “Well, I don’t do anything. I have no problem with the police searching my property. I have nothing to hide.”

Well, what if they do not just search the property. Suppose they are so convinced they have themselves a bad guy that they plant evidence? Suppose they knock in your door in the middle of the night with a trumped-up warrant?

If it could happen to them, it could happen to any one of the rest of us.