Real interesting. To catch a thief on rural property.

[plowhog]

The one thing you seem to be misaligned on is the influence or control the judge has on a search warrant. .... I don't know of anywhere that the judge signing a search warrant becomes the prosecutor or investigator after he signs the warrant.

I don't think I wrote write that; at least, hopefully not. Of course the judge does not intrude into the job of the other parties. But a judge *does* sign search warrants. Which tangles the judge into a certain amount of involvement.

I agree there seems to be misunderstanding about contents of a search warrant. And misunderstanding that a judge's involvement often continues even after signing.

A warrant interferes with and lessens a citizen's rights. That is serious. So warrants include specific instructions about what to do if/when evidence is found.

From Wikipedia:

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

A judge is at atop the food chain. Patrol deputies close to the bottom. Messing with a judge can have long term consequences. LEO's don't do that. They need good relations with judges to do their job.

To believe the video requires: a) officers obtained a warrant, b) found evidence of a crime, c) chose not to make an arrest (their exact job), d) thumbed their nose at the judge's authority by not confiscating the items they were authorized to search for, and, e) let the YouTube star control the outcome instead. All of those things while the cameras were rolling.

The last part of the Wikipedia description noted a search warrant cannot be used to aid a civil process. A "victim" and "perp" standing together to negotiate is a civil process. So LEO's let the victim enter the perp's property (a mistake) then let the YouTube star override their warrant and criminal process to engage a civil process instead? Really? Ignoring a judge to elevate a YouTube star into control? While they are standing their holding evidence of a crime?

I know nothing about this individual. Maybe he's a great guy. But the entire video seems focused on making the hero/video star look good-- rising above deputies, detectives, and even a judge to make a heroic, benevolent decision for the camera.

 

[MossRoad]

I've seen several incidents around here where police find a large cache of stolen items at a residence they are searching. They called the owners of the stolen property to come and get it. I see no difference between those incidents and this one. If the victim chooses to not press charges, it never goes to court. Again, I see no difference.

 

[plowhog]

I've seen several incidents around here where police find a large cache of stolen items at a residence they are searching. They called the owners of the stolen property to come and get it. I see no difference between those incidents and this one. If the victim chooses to not press charges, it never goes to court. Again, I see no difference.

I don't want to get too far down into the weeds-- which I may have already done. So this will be my last comment.

Just because this happened elsewhere doesn't mean it affects the circumstances of the video. For example, the YouTube star has evidence of *who* committed the crime-- a facial and body picture, vehicle picture, and license plate number.

Somewhere else, stolen items can be found, with all parties denying responsibility.

Years ago I was a passenger in a vehicle sideswiped by a van which was driving erratically. We followed the van about 20 miles until law enforcement caught up with them where they had stopped at a gas station. Three drunk guys all spillout out of the side van door-- all denying they were the driver. The police could not do anything. So having evidence of the criminally guilty party is another level beyond just finding stolen property.

 

[MoMower]

The only information I have is from watching the video. But I know a lot of LEO's and NONE of them like being on camera. (A grudgingly accepted fact that they almost always are filmed nowadays.)

The part that seems most obviously faked is the officers agreeing to "lets make a deal" allowing the perp to give stolen property back. I don't know of any jurisdiction where that would be allowed once it escalated to a judge signing a search warrant. This was not petty theft-- based on value this would be grand theft in virtually any jurisdiction. I wrote earlier it would be a requirement (in any jurisdiction I am familiar with) that the stolen property would be taken into custody and the perp given a receipt. Only later would the judge who signed the search warrant choose whether to proceed, and how. Search warrants include specific instructions and officers cannot just "wing it" once it elevates to that level. Once the search warrant is signed, the judge is in control.

Also noteworthy is the officers allowing the perp and victim in close proximity to each other-- really, really bad police work which should never happen. "Letting" or "inviting" the victim to come onto the perps personal property, and get in very close proximity. The list of bad LEO practices goes on and on.

Maybe its legit; maybe its a con job. I don't know. It doesn't help that the "victim" has a strong interest in self-promotion on his YouTube channel, and does lots of things to draw attention to himself. YMMV.

Lol, prosecution for theft is always based on the victims wishes to proceed. A judge signs orders and evaluates the evidence. District attorney/prosecutor is “in charge”.

If both parties are well behaved, let ‘em talk, who cares.

Not trying to be be inflammatory, however your knowledge of Police practices is lacking.

 

[MoMower]

Here's how that works out....

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania prosecutors have dropped a felony theft charge against a man who underpaid for a bottle of Mountain Dew by 43 cents.

Prosecutors in Perry County dropped the theft charge this month against Joseph Sobolewski, 38, and downgraded another charge, the Patriot-News reportedTuesday.

In August, Sobolewski went into an Exxon in Duncannon and saw a sign advertising two 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles for $3, he said. He took one bottle, slapped $2 on the counter for what he thought was a $1.50 soda and walked out, not realizing the discount did not apply to a single bottle.

The bottle really cost $2.29, so including tax, he owed the store 43 cents.

State police found Sobolewski and arrested him on a felony charge. A judge ordered him held on $50,000 cash-only bond. He was in jail for seven days before his public defender successfully argued for his release, the newspaper reported.

Sobolewski had twice in the past 10 years been charged with theft, once for not paying for a tank of gas and another time for stealing a pair of shoes from a store. Under Pennsylvania's three-strikes law, a third theft charge must be a felony, regardless of the amount or value involved. He faced up to seven years in prison.

Not entirely correct (surprised face for a news agency). A 3rd charge after 2 CONVICTIONS, for RETAIL THEFT, is a felony charge.

Without the prior convictions, the grading is based on value of items stolen.

 

[MoMower]

I don't think I wrote write that; at least, hopefully not. Of course the judge does not intrude into the job of the other parties. But a judge *does* sign search warrants. Which tangles the judge into a certain amount of involvement.

I agree there seems to be misunderstanding about contents of a search warrant. And misunderstanding that a judge's involvement often continues even after signing.

A warrant interferes with and lessens a citizen's rights. That is serious. So warrants include specific instructions about what to do if/when evidence is found.

From Wikipedia:

A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant

A judge is at atop the food chain. Patrol deputies close to the bottom. Messing with a judge can have long term consequences. LEO's don't do that. They need good relations with judges to do their job.

To believe the video requires: a) officers obtained a warrant, b) found evidence of a crime, c) chose not to make an arrest (their exact job), d) thumbed their nose at the judge's authority by not confiscating the items they were authorized to search for, and, e) let the YouTube star control the outcome instead. All of those things while the cameras were rolling.

The last part of the Wikipedia description noted a search warrant cannot be used to aid a civil process. A "victim" and "perp" standing together to negotiate is a civil process. So LEO's let the victim enter the perp's property (a mistake) then let the YouTube star override their warrant and criminal process to engage a civil process instead? Really? Ignoring a judge to elevate a YouTube star into control? While they are standing their holding evidence of a crime?

I know nothing about this individual. Maybe he's a great guy. But the entire video seems focused on making the hero/video star look good-- rising above deputies, detectives, and even a judge to make a heroic, benevolent decision for the camera.

Forgot that part, we can and absolutely do allow direct return of property to victims.

Don’t rely to much on wiki.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

Here's how that works out....

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania prosecutors have dropped a felony theft charge against a man who underpaid for a bottle of Mountain Dew by 43 cents.

Prosecutors in Perry County dropped the theft charge this month against Joseph Sobolewski, 38, and downgraded another charge, the Patriot-News reportedTuesday.

In August, Sobolewski went into an Exxon in Duncannon and saw a sign advertising two 20-ounce Mountain Dew bottles for $3, he said. He took one bottle, slapped $2 on the counter for what he thought was a $1.50 soda and walked out, not realizing the discount did not apply to a single bottle.

The bottle really cost $2.29, so including tax, he owed the store 43 cents.

State police found Sobolewski and arrested him on a felony charge. A judge ordered him held on $50,000 cash-only bond. He was in jail for seven days before his public defender successfully argued for his release, the newspaper reported.

Sobolewski had twice in the past 10 years been charged with theft, once for not paying for a tank of gas and another time for stealing a pair of shoes from a store. Under Pennsylvania's three-strikes law, a third theft charge must be a felony, regardless of the amount or value involved. He faced up to seven years in prison.

Pointing out the ridiculous doesn't really qualify as a valid argument. What you cited is a singular exception to common sense. A 1st year law student could get that removed from a three strikes count.

 

[plowhog]

Don’t rely to much on wiki.

Looks like I picked the right week to stop commenting!

 

[tomplum]

So what about the Apple Air Tags. Anyone use them? How long are they trackable for?

 

[MoMower]

Looks like I picked the right week to stop commenting!

Lol, things vary from area to area, for reference I’m an 19yr cop in PA (but these days I won’t readily admit that ftf).