You think it’s not clear that the Feds have probable cause that these criminals who illegally occupy Federal land broke the law?
3 Likes
The problem isn’t IDing him - the problem is that he yelled “Base!” when he got into the store.
3 Likes
Inlabsitrust:
The Feds would still need probable cause to support a search warrant
Overreach this:
You think it’s not clear that the Feds have probable cause that these criminals who illegally occupy Federal land broke the law?
The question I replied to was how the Feds could get their hands on a private business’s surveillance video which may or may not show who was driving and therefore who was in unauthorized possession of the Fed property (the vehicle). The Feds cannot seize the video without a search warrant based on the Feds laying out for the Fed judge or magistrate the probable cause to believe the video would contain evidence of the crime. The article is silent as to how or why the Feds thought they had a suspect. Whatever other crimes this guy may or may not have committed at the refuge has nothing to do whether probable cause exists to support a charge of unauthorized use of this vehicle in this narrow instance. The Feds cannot get a search warrant for evidence of unauthorized use of a government vehicle based on evidence that the same person committed other crimes like trespass, assault or brandishing a firearm
that have different elements.
2 Likes
If I try to understand their reasoning, playing devil’s advocate a bit, they may not have witnessed this 2nd thief thief driving. We would also be frustrated if he got arrested and then sprung. They did impound both vehicles. Eventually, he’ll get what’s coming I believe. The driver Medenbach will likely rat him out on this and other violations. Inlabsitrust, Medenbach will probably help construct probable cause for video if it’s needed, along with finger prints in the impounded vehicle that the subject drove. They may have further evidence also – probably do.
1 Like
They want more Free Stuff. Federal Land belongs to them, waaaaah waaaah.
1 Like
All they are asking for is the Federal Government to turn over round 20-25 states to Bundy and his ignoramus buffoons.
1 Like
UUMV is a felony most places, and does not require proof of the intent to permanently deprive. Given that the clowns insist they mean to leave eventually (on their own terms, of course), I think the charge is the appropriate one.
5 Likes
Sure, YOU can say that from the perspective of a third party, reasonable adult sane tax-paying rule-of-law-respecting society-valuing citizen who may be hundreds to thousands of miles of distant from the Malheur Reserve. But those screwball white supremacist anti-government dudes are all packing major heat and been out there for some time working out anti-siege strategies - maybe not great ones, but given the lack of experience on BOTH sides with this sort of phenomenon, probably enough to cause major risks of grave injury and death to LEOs.
Having been thru a few of these - not as whacky as this one, but each and everyone one of them has its own perculiar whackiness - I have no doubt plans are being made and discussed and coordinated, aiming if possible to occasioning the least possible drama and harm.
3 Likes
I don’t believe a warrant is required for an arrest during an ongoing felony. No warrant means no probable cause is required since the felony is ongoing.
“Why didn’t they wait 'til he came out and got in the vehicle?”
Probably wanted to avoid the possibility of a vehicle chase or the guy having access to a firearm in the vehicle that could have resulted in a shootout and people dead or wounded. Better to separate him from the vehicle and build your criminal case later than risk lives of innocent bystanders and law enforcement officers.
2 Likes
Eventually that will happen no doubt, but first law enforcement must remove them so on scene investigators can learn the extent of crimes committed. Before investigators remove them they need to be separated from their firearms.
Trespass, property crimes, and brandishing firearms with intent to assault are crimes that must be dealt with, and I am sure these will. However at least some of these guys appear to be mentally unstable and armed with firearms because well this is the story of 2016 America under a GOP Congress. Clearly, law enforcement has decided it is better to be publicly dinged for appearing underly aggressive than risking the loss of innocent life by being overly aggressive. This is not a Koresh scenario where the sociopath Koresh was using a religious cult to manipulate members into permitting him to commit statutory rape upon their children.
“I don’t believe a warrant is required for an arrest during an ongoing felony. No warrant means no probable cause is required since the felony is ongoing.”
Probable cause for the arrest is still required whether law enforcement goes before a judge before the arrest to satisfy him/her PC exists to issue an arrest warrant or after the arrest is effected when law enforcement must satisfy a judge that the arrest was based on PC. If no PC is shown, the judge would decline to issue the arrest warrant request in the former instance and order the arrested person released in the latter.
2 Likes
I’m not sure they ARE taxpayers. They get breaks on everything they do; do they also get subsidies?
1 Like
Bait Car strikes again.
To be fair, it is their cattle that are the freeloaders who get free grass on federal lands. So technically the Bundoliers are animal freeloading rights activists.
OMG. Thanks for the LOL, I hadn’t even thought about that in 50+ years!
1 Like
You are actually quite correct because you are using common sense. Federal charges will be totally independent of this. And they are being compiled. This guy that just got busted by police will eventually face federal charges too. But he was in fact off the federal property, so police could bust him.
And the longer they stay there, the more the charges. If it was possible to bust them day 1, you’d probably just have trespassing charges. But now they are messing with computers and property, etc. And it is all being monitored.
Ha ha! But who sells the cattle and collects the $$$$?
2 Likes
The cattle who are considered Sovereign Bovines.
Only after a very large bull-session, though!
You really crack me up!!!
2 Likes