Ban Request -> |AFF| Chris

[M]

That's indeed right. But, that car could have ALSO still been in there, and the fact that a car of the description had been involved with glassco gave me reasonable suspicion to investigate it. I was refused entry, and what people fail to realize is that changed the scope of the situation entirely: it was a warrant placed for refusing to let LEO's enter.

 

[Deleted member 5920]

That's indeed right. But, that car could have ALSO still been in there, and the fact that a car of the description had been involved with glassco gave me reasonable suspicion to investigate it. I was refused entry, and what people fail to realize is that changed the scope of the situation entirely: it was a warrant placed for refusing to let LEO's enter.

I really hope you aren't serious, you told them to let you in because you were looking for a red car? Ahahhaha. Of course they going to refuse entry, you never even gave a name. Also if you raided for failure to give access, why get Swat? Why warrant for "wanted man inside"? You need to stick to the same story.

Also:

(I'm the train.)

 

[The-Devils-Son]

Right under law 11.2 it states "if a Search Warrant is required, LEOs must have observed some or all of the following examples of suspicious behaviour" Now first point
1. There was no red car what so ever only 1 behind you which was next to gas station
2. You can see the first parking lot threw the gates and if you goto scrappy joes you can see the {street} and other parking lot.
3. Harbouring suspects you must be 100% sure there harbouring suspects if not then you cant do that.
4. Now also in 11.2 "LEOs must have observed some or all of the following examples of suspicious behaviour" this means you need more than 1 reason and because there's no red car there you got no grounds I did speak to swiper about this.

 

[M]

I was told to look at business. The fact that that is where the vehicle was last see is simply good enough to ask to look at the vehicles inside of there. The mere fact that a vehicle of such description was leaving the place was good enough to pursue it further.

I did give the name of the suspect, they told me I couldn't look around for the car, and told me they didn't have that person - was I supposed to simply take their word for it?

The sheer number of people who are associated with the property based on observation, and the fact that they denied the wanted person being present (yet wouldn't let me see if that was the case by inspecting the vehicles on the property) meant it would be dangerous for standard police officers to go in alone. The warrant I will admit was rushed, but that was because the SWAT were running over the fence. They gave us reason to believe that the wanted man was inside through their suspicious attitude to the request to search, and that is what is implied by the warrant reason (which is instructed to be brief anyway).

 

[M]

Right under law 11.2 it states "if a Search Warrant is required, LEOs must have observed some or all of the following examples of suspicious behaviour" Now first point
1. There was no red car what so ever only 1 behind you which was next to gas station
2. You can see the first parking lot threw the gates and if you goto scrappy joes you can see the {street} and other parking lot.
3. Harbouring suspects you must be 100% sure there harbouring suspects if not then you cant do that.
4. Now also in 11.2 "LEOs must have observed some or all of the following examples of suspicious behaviour" this means you need more than 1 reason and because there's no red car there you got no grounds I did speak to swiper about this.

Your response is based on their evidence, but if you had taken the time to read what I had put, I did try to request access to the property initially, but it was approximately 10 minutes prior to the raid - the SWAT and I had planned the raid at the PD before arrival based on this.

For number 2, you're right, but why should I have to go to that effort when the property I am interested in should have let me in to look around if I had nothing to hide?

For number 3, I suppose that is the only thing that I can admit to. The warrant reason wasn't ace, and I'm sorry for that (it would have been refusing LEO access, or + the word suspicion) but I did not want to compromise my SWAT officers who were on the property already by spending too much time thinking of what to write.

As for number 4, I suppose I did have another reason and I do have grounds seeing as though you haven't yet seen the evidence of the fact that I attended the property beforehand, and the red sportscar being present.

I am still waiting on ben providing the demo.

 

[Deleted member 5920]

Make your mind up, are you warranting for the refused access of a building that you had no reason to access as you were looking for a car? Or raiding for the car that last know location was the whole of the buissness area/projex and could have be easily spotted from the gate or scrapyard and you even saw leave the property? I dunno but either way you're screwed.

 

[M]

Make your mind up, are you warranting for the refused access of a building that you had no reason to access as you were looking for a car? Or raiding for the car that last know location was the whole of the buissness area/projex and could have be easily spotted from the gate or scrapyard and you even saw leave the property? I dunno but either way you're screwed.

As I said, the reason on the warrant is the only thing I can admit to having done wrong so far. I am a very inexperienced player of PERP, and have never seen anywhere whether a warrant should be based on your suspicion, or the fact that LEO's were refused access when you use the rights which I stated earlier.

 

[Deleted member 5920]

You aren't getting this are you? You didn't need to go inside as you saw the car LEAVE

 

[The-Devils-Son]

"I explained that I would like to look at the vehicles, but I was refused, and a red sportscar with the same chrome-color description had just pulled out." also " I have the top-wanted criminal possibly inside a building, as indicated by a vehicle of matching description, and are refused entry onto the private property."

Right so the guy left the property you already have the red car you already have the guy driving it so there was no need for raid at that point.

 

[M]

"I explained that I would like to look at the vehicles, but I was refused, and a red sportscar with the same chrome-color description had just pulled out." also " I have the top-wanted criminal possibly inside a building, as indicated by a vehicle of matching description, and are refused entry onto the private property."

Right so the guy left the property you already have the red car you already have the guy driving it so there was no need for raid at that point.

The DNA evidence indicated that he was heavily armed, and all of the officers were present at the lockdown at the time. I would have endangered myself by trying to pursue it alone.

 

[Robin Ljungberg]

As i said earIier!! - ''IF you know were looking for that car? why not pull it over and see if that person were inside that vehicle. So basicly you just let that guy go, and you never knew if THAT person were inside that car or not. So you just really let the guy drive away not even trying to stop him.''

So when letting this guy off, not even trying to stop him because ''Its a danger to your life'' NOW you dont even know if the person is inside the building or not, making it a Invalid raid anyway. As YOU need to be 100% that this person is inside the building to raid them. AS he was not because he was in this vehicle. NOW please explain to me how you were thinking when you did let this guy off with this vehicle and you still raided the building.. I just really wanna know how you were thinking.(facepalm)

 

[M]

The DNA evidence indicated that he was heavily armed, and all of the officers were present at the lockdown at the time. I would have endangered myself by trying to pursue it alone.

As i said earIier!! - ''IF you know were looking for that car? why not pull it over and see if that person were inside that vehicle. So basicly you just let that guy go, and you never knew if THAT person were inside that car or not. So you just really let the guy drive away not even trying to stop him.''

So when letting this guy off, not even trying to stop him because ''Its a danger to your life'' NOW you dont even know if the person is inside the building or not, making it a Invalid raid anyway. As YOU need to be 100% that this person is inside the building to raid them. AS he was not because he was in this vehicle. NOW please explain to me how you were thinking when you did let this guy off with this vehicle and you still raided the building.. I just really wanna know how you were thinking.(facepalm)

Within the law, their suspicious behavior was still enough for a raid. The vehicle present on the property yet them not letting me look for it shows that they have something to hide. Why does the law declare boarded up properties as suspicious? Because it's hiding something, and that's why what I did was valid in terms of roleplay. Maybe not from your perception, but from the perception of the rules and the law, yes.

 

[Robin Ljungberg]

Within the law, their suspicious behavior was still enough for a raid. The vehicle present on the property yet them not letting me look for it shows that they have something to hide. Why does the law declare boarded up properties as suspicious? Because it's hiding something, and that's why what I did was valid in terms of roleplay. Maybe not from your perception, but from the perception of the rules and the law, yes.

Sorry, but what Suspicious behavior? Because they said no to you to search their building isnt suspicious behavior, its their rights. Because YOU have no proof that this person is inside this building and they dont have to open the door for you at any time if you dont have a valid reason to search the building.

 

[M]

Sorry, but what Suspicious behavior? Because they said no to you to search their building isnt suspicious behavior, its their rights. Because YOU have no proof that this person is inside this building and they dont have to open the door for you at any time if you dont have a valid reason to search the building.

I was alluding to the fact that refusing LEO's the right to search is seen as suspicious by the law, as it is specified as such. You can't say it was an invalid raid because I didn't have more than one reason, because the car was the other as the moderator has tried to use against me not knowing that I attended the property before the raid.

 

[Bruh Lightyear]

I would like to add that none of our barricades were external, we always kept the shutters closed so you couldn't see them.

 

[GraveDinosaur]

was harboring fugatives?
22:33 - |AFF| Chris: basically what the report is missing is they refuse to accept that I came to the property earlier
22:34 - |AFF| Chris: I came to the property
22:34 - |AFF| Chris: asked to look around
22:34 - |AFF| Chris: they got all defensive, started saying that my guy wasn't there and weren't willing to prove it so they effectively refused the LEO access to the property
22:34 - |AFF| Chris: PLUS the vehicle that was suspected of him driving/being in, or at least a vehicle of that description entered and left it, may have came back before the raid.

I'm neutral in all of this. Chris is my friend and The person making the BR can you please post a demo from the start? So We can see the full evidence. Instead of where it started? Or Chris to send his version of the demo. Just saying the Lt did not communicate with you whiles not giving the full demo is not enough evidence..

 

[Robin Ljungberg]

I was alluding to the fact that refusing LEO's the right to search is seen as suspicious by the law, as it is specified as such. You can't say it was an invalid raid because I didn't have more than one reason, because the car was the other as the moderator has tried to use against me not knowing that I attended the property before the raid.

What dont you understand? Because he said NO to you to search the building DOESN'T mean you can raid them, YOU need a valid reason. You are abusing the Law by doing these kinda stuff you are doing. So the stuff you are doing right is abusing the Law. This is the same as i would go to Office and knock on their door and say that 'I think you have a Meth lab inside here, can i search the building? And they say no, that doesnt mean you can raid them.' that is the exact same thing. JUST because YOU think doesn't mean you can raid them YOU need valid and 100% reasons.. How many times do we need to tell you?

 

[M]

What dont you understand? Because he said NO to you to search the building DOESN'T mean you can raid them, YOU need a valid reason. You are abusing the Law by doing these kinda stuff you are doing. So the stuff you are doing right is abusing the Law. This is the same as i would go to Office and knock on their door and say that 'I think you have a Meth lab inside here, can i search the building?' that is the exact same thing. JUST because YOU think doesn't mean you can raid them YOU need valid and 100% reasons.. How many times do we need to tell you?

I did have 100% reason, the fact that they weren't allowing property access on the basis that I was looking for a wanted person, and a vehicle of the description of the suspect was at it is a fine reason to raid. I didn't break any law, or rule.

 

[M]

I'd like to request that the staff that were involved in the situation its self remain impartial when a decision is being made. Peace.

 

[Ultimate]

As much i can see,everything is clear. This is a random/fail Warrant

Paralake City Laws says;

Spoiler: 11.2 Issuing of Search Warrants

Search warrants may only be issued under certain circumstances, and can only be issued for Private Property that is inhabited. A Search Warrant is typically necessary when it is believed that a crime has been committed or is in the process of being committed within Private Property - please see section 11.5 for whether or not a Search Warrant is required.


Typically, if a Search Warrant is believed to be necessary because of suspicious behaviour, LEOs should first ask the occupant(s) of the property for access to the property to conduct a search - in this case, LEOs must thoroughly explain the process and extent of the search procedure.


If a Search Warrant is required, LEOs must have observed some or all of the following examples of suspicious behaviour: refusal to allow LEOs to enter and thoroughly search the property, barricaded windows and/or entrances, regular instances where people enter the property who have not been there before and who do not go there again, and/or regular instances where the number of occupants within the building exceed the number of bedrooms multiplied by 3.


With regards to Private Property that is uninhabited, a Search Warrant is not required, but LEOs may only search the property if it is believed that a criminal is currently within the property, has entered the property recently, and/or the property contains illegal items/substances, and/or items/substances which are believed to be related to a crime.


At any time, LEOs may search properties owned and controlled by the government, if it is believed that a criminal is currently within the property, has entered the property recently, and/or the property contains illegal items/substances, and/or items/substances which are believed to be related to a crime.

+Support