The original documentary report of the incident is available at KCCN.tv
A recent call to the San Luis Obispo County Sherriff’s department reported shots fired at a two-acre privately owned residence in an unincorporated area of the county.
When Sheriff’s deputies arrived, they immediately moved to detain homeowner Matt Hart, who was sighting in his .22 caliber rifle, as he had done for years, legally, on his own property.
What happened next is nothing short of a clear setup of the homeowner for criminal violations, and a subsequent cover up to protect the arresting officers. As luck would have it, much of the arrest and search and seizure of Mr. Hart’s home and weapons was caught on audio and video surveillance by police issued equipment.
At question is whether or not the Sheriff’s department violated the fourth amendment rights of Mr. Hart by searching his premises without a warrant and without any justifiable cause.
Officers, knowing full well that they were walking a very thin line, discussed how they would go about justifying the unreasonable search and seizure, go so far as to conspire to charge Mr. Hart with multiple crimes including:
- Gross negligent discharge of a firearm
- Brandishing a firearm
- Possession of a machine gun
- Resisting arrest
After watching the video below, most, if not all, American citizens will be outraged at how the Sheriff’s department deputies, in order to save their own skins from criminal and civil penalties, moved to take away the freedoms of a single American who should be protected by Constitutional laws specifically designed for this scenario.
The following portions of conversations are highlighted, as the discussion between officers clearly shows an effort to trump up charges, set up Mr. Hart and save their own butts:
Deputies contemplate how to justify entering the premises without a warrant and seizing weapons:
Deputy Murphy: You’re the detective…do we need a warrant to get into that gun safe? [Deputies had already entered the premises]
Det. Twisselman: …I don’t think…welll…I don’t think under…
Murphy: …exigent circumstances?
Det. Twisselman: …exigent circumstances, you have to.
…
Det. Twisselman: Let’s get your brain going…was the exigency for enter the house…
Deputy Murphy: ‘…bodies?
Unidentified: …potential…victims?
…
Deputy: We take the guns as safe keeping.
Exigent circumstances are those when police believe that entry is necessary to prevent physical harm, destruction of evidence, or escape of a suspect (Supreme Court US. v McConney).
Obviously, the officers enter the home first, then realized they violated Constitutional protects, and had to come up with a reason for doing so. they did this by way of trumping up a criminal charge:
Unidentified deputy: There’s targets down there.
Murphy: Are there any houses down there?
Unidentified deputy: Well, I saw a car driving back there.
Murphy: Well, that’s an area where there are house and stuff?
Unidentified deputy: Yeah.
Murphy: Well, Screw Him. Negligent discharge.
And that’s how it works folks.
The homeowner, Matt Hart, apparently had told the police he would file a complaint about the police entering his house. Deputy Murphy was none to happy about this:
Unidentified deputy: He’s already talking about calling and complaining about us being in his house, so I want whoever writes this up to articulate the reason why.
Murphy: I will supplement it and use very flowery language.
Flowery language to essentially charge an innocent American citizen with at least three felonies, potentially imprisoning the man for decades, all so that Deputy Murphy can keep his job and avoid criminal prosecution himself!
In an effort to make themselves feel better about stripping a man of his rights, Deputies Murphy and Wells had this to say:
Murphy: We are totally…totally justified in everything we did.
Wells: I believe so, too.
It was but a stroke of luck that video and audio surveillance existed, otherwise Mr. Hart could be spending a long time in prison. The felony charges were dropped, but Mr. Hart had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. This, in itself, was a travesty, as Mr. Hart had a public defender, likely due to a lack of funds, and therefore did not have the ability to rigorously defend himself.
This is happening in America right now. And, it will continue to happen as the police state expands its reach. Regardless of how we believe the Constitution should protect us, the fact of the matter is that many law enforcement officers, district attorneys, and judges have already suspended those rights which it should protect.
The only way for individual citizens to protect themselves, it seems, is through personal audio and video surveillance technologies in the home and for mobile applications. Without evidence of abuse, it is nearly impossible to prove one’s innocence, as the deck is stacked against the individual.
Recently, a Texas man was arrested for photographing a police officer who entered his home illegally. Proof that video evidence protects the citizenry is rampant on the internet, though mainstream media has, for the most part, shied away from covering the story. Recently, an Iraq war veteran was arrested, beaten and subsequently released after footage from a private surveillance camera was brought to light. There are hundreds of instances similar to this one, that had a video or audio recording not existed, innocent people would be in jail for unlawful actions by police.
Currently, several states have an outright ban against the public recording of law enforcement officials, though a movement against such bans may be making its way into State and Federal legislation soon.
View the original video documentary at www.KCCN.tv
Hat tip NOYB
what became of the “law enforcement” officers? any charges filed? suspensions, etc???
Looks like the sheriff and his deputies have a history of sorts. http://www.recallsheriffhedges.com/news.html
This is one of the reasons I moved from California to Arizona,
time to take a stand support free states, Arizona is much more
2nd amendment friendly.
Â
Actually a police officer can come into your house and do a limited search for suspects that could harm him. It is called a “protective sweep”. They have to have probable cause such as firearms involved.
What should have happened is this. The officer should have called the home owner over to the side of the property and explain to him that you can not fire a weapon within 800 yards of another home. That was the rule in my state when I was a kid. Sounds reasonable to me. If you want to sight in your rifle, go to a range, or a dump, or some place way out of the way. Just picture yourself living next to some guy who thinks it’s cool to just start shooting and time he wants.
“The officer should have called the home owner over to the side of the property and explain to him that you can not fire a weapon within 800 yards of another home. That was the rule in my state when I was a kid. ”
Really ? Rule or law ? What State ? Was it California ? If not, what does that have to do with anything ?
No such rule/law in Tennessee. And I DO live next to neighbors who light up their firearms when they wish….as do I. Once, on a particularly heavy “light up” ( which included some .50cal ), a grandma that lives down the road called the sheriff’s dept out of concern for me ( thinking a fire fight was in progress, I guess )….they sent two cars….we invited them to join us, they declined and left, and at NO TIME was there any hint it would go further than a response to a call in.
People here shoot responsibly….never heard of an accident, never heard of a stray shot ( using proper backstops ) except for fool hunters from the city that shoot at anything. I don’t have a problem if my neighbor down the road want’s to blast thru a few boxes of ammo.
“The officer should have called the home owner over to the side of the property and explain to him that you can not fire a weapon within 800 yards of another home. That was the rule in my state when I was a kid. ”
Really ? Rule or law ? What State ? Was it California ? If not, what does that have to do with anything ?
No such rule/law in Tennessee. And I DO live next to neighbors who light up their firearms when they wish….as do I. Once, on a particularly heavy “light up” ( which included some .50cal ), a grandma that lives down the road called the sheriff’s dept out of concern for me ( thinking a fire fight was in progress, I guess )….they sent two cars….we invited them to join us, they declined and left, and at NO TIME was there any hint it would go further than a response to a call in.
People here shoot responsibly….never heard of an accident, never heard of a stray shot ( using proper backstops ) except for fool hunters from the city that shoot at anything. I don’t have a problem if my neighbor down the road want’s to blast thru a few boxes of ammo.
Andy said it all SHOOT RESPONSIBLY. There is no Constitutional right for ignorance.
the cops here put macho above excellent high quality police work -in short, they screwed up royally. in addition, not returning four of mr. hart’s guns is simply stealing,
that said, let me just mention that it isn’t proper for folks to be discharging firearms around other folks homes or living space that enables a horrible accident to happen. the accidental shooting a a straying youngster is not to be allowed. PERIOD.
both parties here have some life adjustments to make.
800 yrds ? a half mile ?
Thank god in Michigan there are no limits as long as it is done safely and not in violation of local laws / ordinances, and you are on your own property…
“it isn’t proper for folks to be discharging firearms around other folks homes or living space that enables a horrible accident to happen. the accidental shooting a a straying youngster is not to be allowed. PERIOD.” Â
Who is going to judge what’s proper? If the homes are side by each…If the homes are a mile apart? How about we make it 10 miles? What’s a proper backdrop? What does ‘enable a horrible accident’ mean to you? How about someone backing out of their driveway…can’t that act be construed as ‘enabling a horrible accident’ because a neighborhood kid could be in your blind spot?
This is how personal freedom is destroyed…with only the best of intentions.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
11 Bravo..+1
Where is the ACLU on this?  Just saying, Where are they when you need them?
Ah yes! Just wait and watch as these treasonous bastards peel off those uniforms and die WTSHTF!
You’d never see this happen in my area. …at least more than once. …and all the deputies would have to move out of the area. You can’t do this without some public support.
The ACLU? Ha! The ACLU will *NEVER* defend anything that helps America be America. They are the enemy of America and staunchly defend anything that helps degrade her. The ACLU will never defend certain rights. The ACLU see self defense and defending Christians as an affront to their reason for existence.
The ACLU would be all over this if it didn’t have something to do with the Second Amendment or a Christian.
@NetRanger:
Maybe the “christians” should keep their beliefs to themselves and not try to force THEIR beliefs on others. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. The ten commandments are one thing. outlawing abortion while priests and ministers diddle little boys is another.
“pay Caesar’s things to Caesar”, right? when will the “christian” churches start paying taxes??
And they wonder why no one will trust them. All of these deputies should be jailed for false arrest and violation of the victims civil rights. A little stint in jail with some other victims of their lies should do them good. Hope they all lose their jobs over this. This is about as egregious as it gets.
christians don’t generally believe in separation of church and state. Â They merely see an opportunity to “bless” the rest of us with their bizarro ideas and imaginary friends. Â The fact that a large number of people want to live free of their religion doesn’t empress them. Â I agree all churches should be taxed at least 50% to help out with the deficit.
The real sad thing is that this type of “police action” happens tens of thousands of times every year. Â It happens in every area, even where NetRanger lives. Â The laws have been skewed to make it where they have no legal responsibility for it either. Â Just watch, nothing will happen to these cops.
Sadly these things seem to be happening more and more every year. Recently I was sitting in my bedroom and something outside my window caught my eye. I looked outside and there was a cop car in the road, and I could see 2 cops walking around. They were spread out in my neighbor’s front yard near my yard and seemed to be looking for someone. I step out the front door to make sure no one was creeping up on my house because if they were chasing someone, I want to be ready before that person kicks in my door or something similar. The cop comes into my yard with his gun drawn and we make eye contact. I asked him what was going on, is something wrong and he told me ” nothing” and just walked away to get in the car. I never found out what it was about, but was a little aggravated that they felt the need to have their guns out and to search our property(my neighbor’s and mine) without so much as telling me a single reason why. If someone dangerous was running from them, then he should have warned me. In the past I have had more than one officer show this type of common sense approach in similar situations, but not this time. I’ve noticed since our town has grown and we’ve begun to have officers hired who aren’t locals, that there seems to be a lack of mutual respect which in the past was commonplace.
On the bright side, the cop’s did return an AR15 of mine that was stolen. I reported it stolen and a few months later I got a call that it had been picked up in a drug bust in New Orleans. Luckily the guy who had stolen it hadn’t sold it yet and the St. Bernard police found it. They called me and let me know what to do to get it back. They were very helpful and made me glad to know that there are still good cops out there.
Breaking story today that a man came home to find his son had comitted suicide by hanging himself in the garage. The shaken father called the cops. When they arrived they didn’t like the way the distraught father was acting and they told him to sit down. The father refused and the cops pummeled him to a pulp then arrested him for obstruction of justice. I beleive this was in Georgia.
I had guns taken once. We didn’t have a receipt for the gun and couldn’t get it back. If it was a nice gun I would have done something like create some kind of receipt, but it was just an old Mossberg 20 gauge. The Cops comes to your home for domestic violence of any kind and they will ask if you have guns and you better say no, because they take them and then you might have a hard time getting them back. So I’m telling you to tell the Cops you DON”T have any guns in your home and I don’t care if you have 100 guns in the home. But make sure they can’t see them. Have all the doors shut so they can’t see in any rooms.
Perhaps the police should make it illegal to video tape police.  Hmmmm!
They’ve already trained you to call them “Law Enforcement” so they’re just acting the part. Police are “police the area” “police the streets”……… They DO NOT ENFORCE laws! The job of enforcement is left to the Judicial Branch after you have had a FAIR TRIAL but YOU HAVE ALL DECIDED TO SURRENDER YOUR RIGHTS TO THEM. So because you’re spineless wussies, cops just do whatever it is that you let them do. If you let them in, if you talk to them……. they see that you have surrendered your rights and will carry through with whatever they see fit. For that matter, they work for the local corporation, they have NO LEGAL JURISDICTION over you but once you say “Yes” or it’s equivalent, you have surrendered your rights to them and no longer have any at all. Americans: It’s your own fault!
Hmmm
Actually police can enter your home and do a “limited search”
Ah actually no they cannot. The 4th Amendment states they must have a warrant. I don’t give a rat’s *ss what the courts say. The Constitution is the law of the Land. And NO law issued by any court can overrule the Constitution. You see we have nitwits everywhere thinking that because a court somewhere ruled something was “legal” it actually is. All you have to do is read the Bill of Rights to know that a warrant is required, period.
No ifs no ands and no buts. No warrant means no entry. That is the way the Constitution is written and that is the LAW. You see the 4th amendment does NOT say you need a warrant BUT, the government can enter your home and search without it if they think they should. This entire notion of entering a private home without a warrant UNDER ANY circumstances being legal is nonsense.
Hmmm
Just a very brief follow up comment
“‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
No where do it give the government ANY choice but to to get a warrant. And the warrant cannot be issued without probable cause. There is zero ambiguity here folks. But then again I am assuming all of you out there saying the police can do this and that can actually read………..