Cops Illegally Enter Woman's Home and Arrest Her After She Told Them To Leave

This is the reality we're beginning to live in. When the cops can take things into their own hand and force you to do things that are against your civil rights. Her boyfriend was the criminal, not her. She did nothing wrong and had no reason to identify herself.

The problem is the agency will find every loophole they can to say they had a right to arrest her. The reality is, they had no right to arrest her and she had no right to identify herself as she did nothing wrong.

If you want to ask me why I'm libertarian, it's because folks vote for folks that allow this to occur. I'm highly against these type of acts, my hope is eventually everyone will be and will see why this is a bad thing, for everyone, not just this family.

 

Oh, are you talking about this case???;




“I felt violated by these two men,” said Limon.

The incident occurred a few days after Limon’s former boyfriend had been arrested and charged with committing a string of armed robberies.

Authorities said deputies came to the apartment as part of a follow-up investigation into the robberies, and added that the suspect’s stolen vehicle had been witnessed parked near Limon’s home earlier in the week.

A spokesperson from the constable’s office said deputies didn’t need a search warrant because the women failed to give their names.



Her boyfriend committed a string of robberies and your going to sit there and tell me some of the loot might not have been there??? At this point Limon had the right to identify herself, let the police in and cooperate with the investigation. Oh, you think those that profit from crime needs to be protected??? Figures.

 

What her boyfriend does is on him, not the girlfriend. More so than that, if they arrested the boyfriend a few days ago, they should've searched the house that day. Going to a crime scene a few days later, where folks are living there, they can destroy evidence. There was 0 reason for them to be there.

This is just simply a case of cops not liking it when folks know what their rights are. And I'm surprised someone supports this. Then again...

 

That's what a search warrant is for. If they didn't have one, they had no right to enter the premises and she had every right to resist the arrest. It's criminal for them to arrest her and it's criminal for them to charge her with resisting arrest.

 

My gut feeling - they stuffed up.

 

I don't understand why she didn't simply tell them her name. No escalation of the situation.


Is that really so difficult?

 

NOT if he gives his address as to where she lives. Next, how long does it take to get the information they need to start looking. Are you that ignorant about police work, you think they know things by osmoses??

 

If you don't commit a crime, you have no legal obligation to tell others your name. That's the whole point to this. They didn't have a search warrant, they used their 'badge' to enforce the law onto her, and locked her up. This women has every right to be upset and had no legitimate reason to give the officers her name.

 

So if every convicted criminal gives out some random address, it's ok for the cops to come and search the house without a warrant? Cops can't just come into a house on a 'hunch' or because someone gave an address of someone else. The women had every right not to provide her name and the cops were wrong for arresting her.

The only thing I'm ignorant about is when folks force their will onto others and those who support this type of behavior.

 

I really have no sympathy for someone who 9 x out of 10 says was involved in the armed robberies either directly or indirectly.

 

It's not about sympathy, it's about respect for rule of law.

 

She was either hiding something, or she's just plain arrogant. I don't know if the cops were acting legally, but I sympathize with them in this case.

 

It's O.K. to go there and ask. Does that bother you??? And if the person does not cooperate they can and will be charged with obstructing. Like I said, does that bother you??? She was arrested for not identifying her self when she was asked, that's call obstructing, get over it.

 

Thank you LFOF, I appreciate your point.

My thought (hopefully objective) was, considering the events immediately preceding this incident, that perhaps she could have saved herself from this happening, by simply providing identification when asked. I wasn't really thinking in terms of whether she was required to, but rather, why would she refuse a simple request from the officers, considering the overall situation.

I most regret that this had to happen, with small children present. I wish she had thought of them, instead of herself.


Anyway, thanks for the reply.

 

Sure, it's OK for them to go over there and ask. It's also OK for her not to provide her information. Furthermore, since they had no search warrant, once they were asked to leave the house, they were obligated to leave the house. At no point do they have permission to say no and stay and arrest her.

They came to her house, had no search warrant, refused to leave when asked, and arrested her, that's called not respecting the rule of law. Until folks understand that, I won't get over it.

 

I agree that this could've been avoided. However, you have to ask yourself, if you don't stand up for your rights at that point, when will you? Yes, it would've been easier for her to identify herself and just be done with it. However, legally, she had no obligation to do so. In that case, she should've stood up for her rights.

More so than that, even if you are cooperating with the police and you are asked to leave, the cops are supposed to leave, if they have no search warrant. They told the women, no, they wouldn't and then proceeded to arrest her. That's completely illegal, in the sense, that she did nothing wrong. One of the other posters on here stated she obstructed justice. If that was the case, the cops would've had a search warrant and had some legal means to be there. If they had no legal means, there is nothing to obstruct.

 

I don't know the specifics of the law in Texas but here in Ohio you are not required to provide personal information (name, address and date of birth) to the police unless you have committed a crime or are a witness to a felony.

Hmmm....The news report says the robber was her former boyfriend. I have a sneaking suspicion that her ex might have led the police to her place to spite her and was laughing his ass off in jail when he saw that news report on TV.

 

Once more, since they are investigation a felony if she doesn't provide her name she is obstructing an investigation. Do you understand the meaning of OBSTRUCTING??? At THAT point they have the right to arrest her. And, no, they are NOT obliged to leave.

 

How about the possibility of receiving stolen property??



http://www.khou.com/news/crime/A-womans-confrontation-with-deputies--206694581.html
The incident occurred a few days after Limon’s former boyfriend had been arrested and charged with committing a string of armed robberies.

Authorities said deputies came to the apartment as part of a follow-up investigation into the robberies, and added that the suspect’s stolen vehicle had been witnessed parked near Limon’s home earlier in the week.

 

Yeah right. Where was the warrant?

Scumbags who defend the pigs' actions in this case are even scummier than both the pigs and the robber combined.

 

Once more, since they have no search warrant, they had no reason to be there. I clearly understand the meaning of obstructing. The difference between what I understand and you is, there is no legal reason for them to be there. If they had a search warrant, then the woman would have to give up her information because, at that point, she would be obstructing justice, if she didn't comply. Furthermore, the officers would have been able to stay in the house hold, even if they are asked to leave. Cops can NOT come into someone's house, without a search warrant, and say 'No' when asked to leave. It's against the law, simple as that. Even everyday citizens, if you enter someone's house and the owners of the house ask you to leave, you have no right to be there.

No search warrant, no information, they are obliged to leave as they have no right to be there, and they had no right to arrest her, it's not hard to understand.

 

However, to get to the crux of this argument. According to Texas Penal Code Section 38.02, it states the following (http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.02.00.html):

Then, if we look at her arrest charge in the Harris County database (http://harriscountyarrests.com/records/MA/limon/159916/), she was arrested as a 'Class A misdemeanor'. According to Texas law, that means she was 'A person commit[ed] an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has: (3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense'. So, in which case, that means she wasn't locked up because she didn't provide the information, she was locked up because she gave false information. That changes the entire topic of this thread.

However, if folks still wish to believe not providing information is still wrong and the cop was obligated to arrest her, then we will continue to disagree. Providing false information is one thing, not providing any is another.

 

Obstructing implies an action forcing others to leave off whatever it is that they are doing. She didn't commit any action. She simply refused to identify herself. They could have continued their investigation by asking some neighbors to identify her.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't change anything unless the officer had good cause to believe that she was witness to a criminal offense. That her ex-boyfriend is a criminal does not make for good cause.

 

We will get no where with the, "Yes they did"," no they didn't", nonsense, so let's set back and see what the courts have to say about it, shall we?? Then we can discus the legal ins and outs of the matter

 

The only 'cause' they had (I wouldn't necessarily call it a 'good' one), to go over to her house, was the fact that the stolen vehicle was parked outside of her house, I think they said a week or so ago, prior to her arrest. In which case, they could come by the house and ask for information. However, the woman could've simply stated that she didn't want to talk and didn't want to give any information. According to Texas law, she wouldn't have broken any laws.

So, the question would now become, since the stolen car was parked outside of her house, would that constitute as a valid reason to go over there? I would say it is a valid reason to go over there. The only thing I question is the validity of the arrest. According to the arrest, she provided false information. According to all accounts, she never identified herself. If it's the latter over the former, I still stand by the principle that they had no right to arrest her. Even if she provided false information, I don't necessarily think that's a right to arrest someone either.

In the end, I'll continue to watch this story, as I want to see the reason behind this arrest. This, to me, is a clear sign of abusing power and trampling on folks civil rights & liberties. If a stolen parked car is outside of my house, it doesn't necessarily mean I did anything wrong. In which case, I have no reason to provide information to the police.