Update - cops got call on kids living in tent in Garrido's backyard yrs ago, did not enter backyard

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/authorities-missed-an-opportunity-to-find-jaycee-lee-dugard-several-years-ago-sheriff-says.html

Sheriff apologizes for missing opportunity to find Jaycee Lee Dugard sooner
August 28, 2009 | 12:11 pm

The Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department said authorities received a 911 call several years ago reporting that there were tents in the backyard of Phillip Garrido’s home and that children lived there.

The caller said Garrido was “psychotic” and had sexual addictions. A deputy talked to Garrido in the frontyard but never entered the home and concluded there was no criminal activity.

Sheriff Warren Rupf apologized today. “We may have missed an opportunity to have intervened earlier,” he said.


"This is not an acceptable outcome," Rupf told reporters Friday.

Rupf said law enforcement should have been "more inquisitive" and "more curious."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/authorities-missed-an-opportunity-to-find-jaycee-lee-dugard-several-years-ago-sheriff-says.html

Rupf said the sheriff's deputy who questioned Garrido did not request to enter the backyard. The deputy simply warned Garrido that living outside was a code violation and left the home where Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two daughters were allegedly kept in a compound of sheds and tents in the backyard.

I thought I read he was a sex offender. That together with children in the yard should have put the cops on notice and have them do a thorough investigation.

we have to make a choice that could lead to us being fired, sued and having to live in tents with our families, sometimes we cant win no matter what we do...

The guy was on parole. He had hardly any rights. And you're trying to argue the cops were afraid of him?

look at the numerous posts alone on DU were people are crying out for cops to lose their jobs, house, savings etc etc, the cops fecked up here, but im sure that 20 20 hindsight runs in your family....

Nice try. Even if they have limited 4th Amendment rights, the caller offered enough probable cause.

Admit it. They didn't do their homework.

okay now im glad you support cops entering any parolees home without cause at the drop of a hat, we will see how long before the lawsuits begin....

By saying that they've become timid because of lawsuits and such. If a cop is the recipient of a lawsuit, you can be damned sure that he or she is deserving of it, especially with the way that crimes committed by cops are almost always hidden from public view.

all it takes is someone with a bee in their bonnet about anything you do or say and its on. do you know how many of these lawsuits cops lose, very few due to the fact that the majority are BS, but there is always the fear that wwe may lose everything we have due to having done something for the best intentions but that a jury decides against..

How many of those people with bees in their bonnets actually go face to face with the cop in court? If cops are afraid to do their jobs, it's because they shouldn't have become a cop in the first place, not because they're afraid of lawsuits. With all the cops I've dealt with and the stories I read about every day, lawsuits are the last thing in the world they're afraid of.

due to something i might do at a traffic stop than i do of being shot during a traffic stop, the problem in all walks of life nowadays is the lack of common sense when it comes to everyday interactions... you just have to look at all the cries that go up if anything is posted about cops, automatically its all cops are racists, fascists etc etc, try telling me that those same nuts posting that wouldnt take me to court in a heartbeat if i pulled them over and they thought it was due to race... PS DU is a cross segment of the general population

If you don't do anything obscenely illegal, you don't need to worry about going to court. Hell, every few days I see another case of some cop tasering a toddler or shooting grandma and the most severe punishment I typically see is a few days of paid leave. You can't take a person to court just because they're offended, and taking a cop to court is even more difficult. Just because people wish they could take you to court doesn't mean they can.

Lawyers certainly don't advise their clients that it's easy to sue the police. I just think police right now are over-scared of any little thing that presents any possible threat to them. You think that people in other professions are free from being sued? Right down to the janitor who neglects to put up the "wet floor" sign? If police are terrified of losing lawsuits it's an irrational fear, and I certainly don't see it in cases of police misconduct that I know of. It's amazing what certain cops will do when they think they can get away with it, and lately, they've been caught when they've accidentally pulled over a star athlete to harass instead of the common black joe they harassed all the other times.

I just don't believe police have much to fear from lawsuits. I know of a few cases where police have altered entire scenes and destroyed evidence to protect fellow officers who caused wrongful deaths and injuries. How is anybody going to win a suit against that? There's only one way, take it to the press, and that's what they are really afraid of. I wish I could find a study, but I'm betting that of all professions you could name, the police are the least likely to lose a suit, and are the least likely to have a suit that gets beyond one hearing. If they settle, it's more because they are afraid of the bad press continuing the case would cause, not because they think they'll lose at the end.

I don't think any accusations I give that police are fascist and racist are automatic, I think they are well-borne out by evidence I can cite. I mean given that blacks are far more likely to be pulled over than whites, and yet, are found with contraband or weapons less of the time they are pulled over!

As for fascism, I know of one community near my home where, if an EMS is called, the police will show up first to run the ID's and pat search all of the black males above the age of 12 before letting the emergency crew in-- just for the crew's safety, you know. BTW, the 9-year-old boy for which the emergency vehicle was called was DOA. Another moral victory for ethnic cleansing there.

I'm not saying, by any means, that you're in any way a racist or a fascist, but I think you ought to open your eyes and figure out why people's regard for your profession might be so low right now.

You know. Criminals have all the rights.

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: HARASSING PAROLE SEARCHES ARE DANDY

The officer contacted the defendant and found out that he was on parole. Sanders (31 Cal.4th 318) permits a parole search. The only limitation on that search is em>Reyes (19 Cal.4th 743), which says that the search can't be arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.

The defense claims that this was a public strip search, and was thus harassing. The Court of Appeal goes to some pains to rule that this was not a public strip search. The search, though in public, was conducted in the back of a hotel parking lot in an area that didn't face the street.

They describe the search as the officer. lowering the defendant's pants a foot or so, then pulling back the elastic waistband of his underwear, permitting a visual search of his crotch area. The
only item of clothing the officer removed was the defendant's belt, the defendant's private parts were not exposed, and there's no evidence the officer touched the defendant's private area, he simply retrieved the bag of drugs. We're going to have to argue that had the officer done much more than this, it would qualify as harassing.

http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/2009/04/california_criminal_defense_ha.html

I'm not blaming the police for what the Garridos did. Only they are responsible, but to try to CYA is a little too much. Search and seizure protections did not prevent a more comprehensive investigation.

when the homeowner in quesiton has no prior records, so your line is bullshit.

...and the same people who most criticize police "failures" like this are the first ones to want to string you up for being heavy-handed.

There are some here who actually understand what you go through and empathize.

I can't believe it is alleged here that any liberal who is not really an anarchist can read this case and possibly think IDing the guy, the homeowner, and finding out he was a child molester would have been a "heavy handed search, or a "violation of rights."

I can't believe the sheriff's office can possibly make an argument that they didn't ID him because they were respecting his rights, or because they were afraid of lawsuits. If they ID'd him, put together he was child molester with unidentified children living on his property, found out he was on parole, and then decided they couldn't search, I'd call that being afraid of lawsuits. Otherwise, I just laugh in the face of anybody who tries to say this.

I can't believe that, getting a warrant on an anonymous tip and kicking down somebody's door, pinning them to the floor with a gun their ear, planting contraband when none is actually found, and then using that as an excuse to seize his house as forfeited assets is in any way presented as the opposite part of that spectrum.

The difference is not of fear or lack of fear of lawsuits, the difference is between laziness and corruption. Their assurance to the woman that they couldn't search because they don't have a warrant was bullshit to begin with. They hadn't done even the basic, non-invasive, boilerplate work that could have determined if there was anything to get a warrant for, they didn't legally need one to begin with, and they had no intention of "watching" the guy as the sheriff said.

It isn't a matter of police being afraid of lawsuits. How about just some honesty, professionalism and work?

This is a clear cut case of very shitty cop work. There is no way that any cop could have been fired or sued for searching his back yard. They were just lazy. If a cop gets sued, chances are there's a very, very good reason.

I don't find cops "timid" about anything. Children seen living in a tent in a convicted child molester's backyard not cause for an inquiry? Did they even run the guy's ID? If they had, they might have found him living in proximity to children to be somewhat worrisome. Or ask why tents were permanently erected behind fences like that? Did they refer the complaint to city inspectors to come out and have a look?

It's more like they were inattentive, lazy and negligent, but I guess you could put that together and call it timid.

And probably, due to the fact that the homeowner was white, they were certain that doing the bare minimum wouldn't come back to bite them on the ass.

Really, being more or less aggressive enough to get sued is not even part of the issue. It's not a matter of not being aggressive enough, or being too aggressive. It's a matter of dropping racism, stopping the priority on seizing drugs and assets for one's department, and using one's brains.

Or give the bullshit line about not having a warrant? Sorry, "timid" and being "fear of being fired" and having a "fear of lawsuits" just doesn't cut it here.

For being sued, there's also a such thing as a tort omission. That's negligently not doing what you were obligated to do. The guy is now being investigated for being a serial killer. Investigators are digging there, and if they begin to find bodies of murdered women, you could bet that sheriff is and probably a few other officers and departments are looking at a lot of lawsuits.

I guess laziness isn't always the best legal protection.

...to taser a 72-year old grandmother!

suspicious activities, some of us would complain that the police go too far and/or infringe on our liberties. Conversely, everytime these things happen it's always a situation such as "if only the police had acted sooner."

forgetaboutit. Remember the cops had Richard Allen Davis before Polly Klass was killed too, and he was on parole. Maybe there is a pattern here. Maybe rather than news laws cops could take advantage if the laws they have.

It seems rather obvious to me police should have gone in there and investigated when the neighbor called.
This isn't rocket science.

Children living in tents next to a house. Okay, that's unusual, but not suspicious. Children living in a convicted child-molester's back yard? I believe that would have been all they needed for either a warrant, or to report it to some other agency like Family Services, or even the city inspector. (Who I think would have had reason to question those extension cords running out to the tents.

It's perfectly understandable to me that they couldn't have investigated based only on tents in somebody's backyard. That restraint is just fine. I cannot understand them not finding out at all even who the guy was.

supposed to do. "curious" my ass. who ever screwed that one up should be fired, imo. total incompetency.

It is doubtful whether a 911 call would have been enough to convice a judge to grant a search warrant.

So the cops go to the house, the suspect comes out into the front yard, givens them a line of BS and they leave.

This is standard procedure.

Police do not prevent crime. They investigate crimes after they happen and sometimes they figure out who did it -- but quite rarely. Maybe 50% of the time for murders, and a lot less for every other type of crime.

subject to search at any time. Case closed.

cause you never know wwe might find something to revoke them, lets see how long that idea would last..

First, you defend the cops saying that even though they should have been suspicious, they shouldn't have investigated because it was private property and they'd have needed warrants or they'd have been too afraid of being sued or fired. Then, when you're informed that police don't need a warrant to search homes of parolees (something I would have thought you'd have known from the get go), you go off saying that you can't investigate ALL parolees houses because you'd be violating their rights.

How about... This guy was a parolee and the cops were given MANY reasons to be suspicious of him. THAT'S why he should have been investigated. No one is saying that all parolees houses should be searched, that's just a strawman you built up to make your position seem more defensible. They're saying that if a parolee does this many things that should arouse the suspicion of local law enforcement, THEN they should not think twice about investigating him until they find out what's up. Is that so difficult to understand?

When you are capable of writing an adult post, I will respond to your question. Until then, I'll just ignore you.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/27/MN0Q19EMR7.DTL

Erika Pratt said that two years ago, she called police after seeing what looked like a living compound with tents and sheds.

No warrant

Sheriff's deputies came to ask questions, Pratt said, but they told her that because they didn't have a warrant, they couldn't search the house.

"I always wished someone could do something about it," Pratt said. "It was like he was charging people to live there."

They treated it like a standard nuisance complaint. Because they were treating it as a nuisance complaint, and because he was a caucasian, they didn't run the guy's ID and find out he was a parolee.

Yet the policeman who went to the house did not. Just looking into the public record of the man at the house could have been enough to pique the interest of the police to further investigate. In this case Garrido being registered on the sex offenders registry failed to to anything to help these poor victims.

It was after running his criminal history that Garrido was busted.

I hate to say that this is what constitutes probable cause to police these days, for at least a pat search and an ID check. The latter is all they had to do.

Well, we see how the sex offenders' registry can fail.

They let sex offenders off easy and lock drug offenders up forever because drug offenders are easier to watch and control.

two four years old girls there as well. Where are those children if that's true? Police has never mentioned anything about two four years old. Yet the neighbor seems very observant. The woman about 25 would be Jaycee. The 11 and 15 years old are her daughters. Yet no four years old were found. Where are they?

"Pratt said people came and went from the property, but the core group consisted of two girls about 4 years old, one girl about 11, another girl about 15 and a young woman about 25. They were all blond, she said.

Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriff's deputies to investigate, but that officers "told me they couldn't go inside because they didn't have a warrant. So they just told him they'd keep an eye on him.""

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/28/MN4N19EJ35.DTL#ixzz0PXX3kdSN

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/28/MN4N19EJ35.DTL

Apparently he is also a suspect in the cases of several missing prostitutes, from the 1990s. This guy is a real winner. Hard to believe all of this went on for so long, with multiple calls from neighbors.

"The question about how he went unnoticed became more pressing Friday when Garrido came under suspicion in the unsolved murders of several prostitutes in the 1990s, raising the prospect he was a serial killer as well. Several of the women's bodies — the exact number is not known — were dumped near an industrial park where Garrido worked during the 1990s."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090829/ap_on_re_us/us_kidnapped_girl_found

rescued from their crippled social and intellectual development.