Stolen Vehicle

The local police got a call about ATVs making noise (I live in the country), when they showed up the ATVs were gone but, the officers went on private property across the street from my home w/o permission and ran tags on vehicles parked there; one came back stolen.

Two hours later when the riders came back they loaded up and were leaving when the individual they were looking for that was in possession of an "alleged" stolen vehicle pulled in my driveway to turn around and thank my hubby for the "boys day out". He had gotten out of the vehicle and came in the garage to bid farewell. I had peeked out of the laundry room door to ask a question as they (hubby & friend) just stepped out of garage when 5 police cars drove in my front yard & driveway; Yelling, cussing and guns they took down 1 person that was changing shoes in the driveway, 1 person that was playing with my dog, hubby & friend, then came in my garage, kicked in the door and drug me out of the house in my undies. After they already had the "suspect" in custody.

I filed complaints requesting repairs based on the violation of my 4th amendment rights with the local mayor, the state troopers office, and the county sheriffs office, all who were called into to execute the takedown. I was denied any compensation for the damages to my home because, according to state police investigation the officers were acting to protect themselves from harm. Which is what the local office based thier denial on also.


It has come to my attention that the "suspects" attorney has had all charges dropped based on several violations of his rights and lack of evidence, but I have yet to be compensated for repairs of my door.
Do I have any recourse? If his charges were dropped because of the illegal execution then wouldn't the subsequent actions be just as illegal?

Illegal execution on of a warrant is not synonymous with lack of probable cause. If you want your door to remain intact, don't have people over that you KNOW the police "ALLEGE" are criminals, and don't have them buddy up to your husband, thereby reflecting suspicion on YOU and on him. Your "friends" actions gave the police reasonable suspicion that you or he may be involved too--was it that hard of a premise? Stolen stuff, the guy is chatting it up in your house----surely you see how that reflects on you? Also, you never state how the charges against your husband were resolved? What was he charged with and what is the disposition of that case?

Here is a parallel for you---suspect robs a bank, steals my Corvette. He roars away from a robbery, chase ensues at speeds only Vettes are capable of,cops shoot at the vehicle, use spike strips, and stop the fleeing felon and my car is destroyed. Is it the police officers fault? No, it is the fault of the fleeing felon who took it in the first place. As in your case, the presence of someone wanted by the police with acceptable probable cause ( not a guilty verdict ) was the catalyst which resulted in the smashing of the door. You are putting the blame on the wrong person.

Here is a question for you--you said the atv were 'GONE" when the cops got there, then you say the supects came back to 'load up'. Did you lie and tell the cops you didn't know where the riders were? I thought they were already gone? It is also telling that you never stated that you and your husband had nothing to do with the crime in question and you never state that the car WASN'T stolen--clearly it was. Fill in the blanks.

Now... probable cause means they CAN go on private property---and as you said, they were there pursuant to a call, no violation on their part there. Also, further probable cause made them come BACK to arrest--and since those wanted were on your property, they were within their right to execute the warrants in a manner which afforded THEM the most safety. (notice, if they had been on the property next door, you and our husband < if you weren't charged---you never really say> wouldn't have been arrested and your door would be intact. Under section 1983 which governs civil liability of police officers ( and other public officials related to the same), the test is reasonableness. Did they act in a reasonable manner? It appears to me as though they did.

The best way to keep the police from your door step is to keep people of questionable repute from stopping to thank you for the memories. NOT a smart move. What you are saying is similar to a guy whose friend is smoking pot, guy gets stopped, gets mad because HE gets arrested because his FRIEND has pot--and later the charges are dropped against him when his friend admits it was his. Instead of being mad at the cops, why not be mad at the guys who came to your house with stolen property, abandoned it and came back to shoot the , er, breeze? Why blame the cops who were trying to right the wrong these "friends" did?

Here is the bottom line: PROBABLE CAUSE is NEVER justified or, in turn negated by the verdict. In other words, the end never justifies the means. Another way to say it--whether the charges were dismissed or not in no way affects the legitimacy of acceptable probable cause. Look at OJ. The standard for probable cause ( needed to affect a warrant) is much lower than the standard for a conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) because probable cause is established before a full investigation is competed. Obviously, more information lending itself to a guilty or conversely not guilty verdict may be forthcoming.

If alleged robbers weren't chatting it up with you, your door wouldn't be broken.

A savvy attorney who aggressively defends his client and convinces the court to drop the charges on a technicality is NOT the same thing as being INNOCENT.

We had NO IDEA that this individual was involved in any criminal activity. He was a tag along of someone we knew as a upstanding citizen. We don't do background checks on everyone we meet.

He was in the driveway standing just OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE, not inside my home.

We were never charged with anything.



We live in a hick town of less than 200 persons; I work directly with first responders and some law enforcement. I attend city council meetings and, I had even joined the city planning board. NOT ONCE did sheriff bob knock on the door to ask questions. (But I'll bet when voting time comes he'll be knocking then!!!) I would have gladly answered any questions first because I was unaware of issues, secondly I don't knowingly associate with criminal activity it would have negative effects on my employment.


IMO...They should have taken him down across the street where they found the vehicle BEFORE he cranked it up and drove it. If they had done that it would have never made it to my property.


Thanks for the advice; when the dust settled, this person was a victim of someone else (fradulent car dealer). So even though at that particular moment he was percieved to be involved in a criminal issue the proof that he wasn't has been legally validated. So now we KNOW he is in fact NOT a criminal tell me exactly how I should go about finding out who is/isn't of ill repute before they set foot on my property?.


Again...if he had been taken down across the street where they found the vehicle BEFORE he cranked it up and drove it would have never made it to my property.

I appreciate all the time and effort you put into copying and pasting phrase for phrase, but unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, a lot of your posting is irrelevant.

How you THINK they should have done their job isn't relevant if they follow the law. I appreciate your sense of civic duty but what does attending city council meetings or being a first responder have to do with establishing guilt or innocence, or for that matter--probable cause?

Your snippy comment about "we don't do background checks on everyone we meet" reflects on your mentality. When the police came and you KNEW they were looking for the person in question---the fact that you still allowed them to be on your property, talk with them, at the garage, in the yard, on the porch--it doesn't matter where you and they were--you stood and chatted with these upstanding citizens when you knew the police were looking for them re: stolen vehicle. Maybe that would have been a clue maybe everything wasn't on the up and up? Just a guess...

Also, being faced with an alleged car thief establishes probable cause enough so the police don't HAVE to say, "Hiya, Skipper, how are the wife and kids? Seen any robbers around?" They cannot treat you any differently than anyone who has an alleged criminal on their property. For their safety, they secure the scene, THEN sort out who and what.

Just like a traffic stop--they put driver and passenger (at times) in handcuffs for their own protection. Ask questions, then remove the handcuffs. Was the person arrested? No... was he free to go? Yes.

Bottom line---the actions of your 'friends' implicated you that day, not the police. You are still missing the point---the cops were on your property BECAUSE THE ALLEGED THIEF was on YOUR PROPERTY. They don't REMOVE him from where they found him to arrest him, or question him.

If a guy robs a bank and flees into a neighboring house and breaks the door down, when the cops nab the guy, they don't take him BACK to the bank and discuss the crime with him. What you are saying doesn't make sense. You let someone you KNOW the police are looking for in connection with theft of an auto ON your property to chat and say, Hey, thanks for the memories, dude..... the first words out of MY mouth would have been, "Hey, I don't know what the hell is up, but the cops were here and they are looking for you. Leave my property before they come back!!"

I found this comment particularly attractive: "So now we KNOW he is in fact NOT a criminal tell me exactly how I should go about finding out who is/isn't of ill repute before they set foot on my property?. " Although it isn't my job to tell you how to be a judge of character, although some of us have managed to go our whole life without every getting our doors busted down because we invited criminals over, since you asked, I will tell you. There was no expectation that you would know BEFORE hand that the person was suspect in a theft, BUT your actions AFTER that point were contributory to the chain of events that followed. No, you don't run back ground checks, although, apparently according to you, with your stellar access as a pillar of the community as a first responder and conscientious city council meeting goer, you shouldn't have any trouble doing so if you wanted to----but your actions AFTER you knew they were wanted are what reflects suspicion on you by association. Understand?

None of this makes you guilty of a crime----but your actions regarding these "friends" DOES reflect on the POSSIBILITY (reasonable suspicion) that you were involved.

As I said, if you think your rights were violated, hire an attorney who has experience with Section 1983, Civil Liability regarding police officers acting under color of the law and sue. But, be advised, I suspect he or she will tell you the same thing I have.

Good luck.

Not snippy, just a pointing out an after thought.

According to the police report on file, The law had 2 hours which to stake out and subdue him where his vehicle was parked.

It takes me all of 47 seconds @ the posted speed of 50mph to get from the police station to my home. You can try and justify all you want; the fact remains that within that time frame he loaded his atv on the back of a trailer, hitched it down, got in the truck, drove it across the highway to turn around, parked it, got out walked up the driveway and bid farewell.

If he's had aspirations to work in a nascar pit crew then he would have gotten an instant job. <sarcasm>


UNTIL THAT VERY MOMENT... When they drove in the yard leaping from cars yelling, cussing and kicking in doors with guns drawn...did I or hubby have a clue that the police were looking for anyone in relation to a stolen vehicle!!!!


I was inside my house the truck wasn't in my house, and neither was he. So again why kick in my door?

It occurs to me that I am wasting my time trying to provide objective and legally accurate information to someone who wants to argue with me since they cannot do so with the relevant parties.

I have provided you with what the law says regarding the conduct of police officers re: 1983. I have also advised you to consult with an attorney regarding the same since you aren't interested in hearing anything other than what a victim you were.


Oh, and by the way, dear, I wasn't trying to "justify it all you want"---it wasn't MY door that was being kicked down. The rest is immaterial to me, coming or going.

Justify it to someone who matters--or for that matter, someone who cares enough to continue posting on this thread.

It isn't me.