Robert D. Muse
Constitutional Sheriff Candidate
Idaho Criminal & Civil Justice.Net
Police Corruption 2014
City of Nampa Idaho

Today the court dismissed all firearm violations and charges against Bail Agent Robert D. Muse

 

Why? I pursued a fleeing felon that was convicted latter in both state (5 NEW CHARGES CONVICTED ON 2, NEVER CHARGED WITH FELONY BAIL JUMPING (WHY?), ELUDING POLICE & STEALING THE MOTORCYCLE I PURSUED AFTER THAT RESULTED IN MARTINEZ ARREST) and federal court as a leading gang member and meth distribution possible facing 20 years and $ 1,000,000 million dollar fine. Charges were created by an overzealous detective. Now the civil trial process will begin within 180 days and the Nampa Chief of police, detective, Mayor, and City Council will be the new defendants for violating my constitutional rights. They all were given notice in the beginning to stop this selective prosecution for attempting to enforce an unconstitutional law. What did they do? Either threaten me or nothing at all in a city town hall meeting or threaten imprisonment for filing a civil complaint against the detective with a form that would charge you with a crime if they did not like your complaint.

 

http://www.idahopress.com/news/crime_courts/two-nampa-men-plead-guilty-to-distributing-meth/article_755db9a0-f475-11e4-aa1f-533844735ec4.html

 

Bail Agent vs. Public Law Enforcement

Thank you for taking the time to read this informative document.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has ruled - "it is not the duty of the police to protect the individual citizen ...

(" Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, D.C.App. 1981).

Police have a very difficult job. Police are not specifically trained for private property protection. Police, at their respective academies are taught police procedures'. Police are not taught private property protection through constitutional civil contract law.

Bail Agents when properly licensed, qualified and equipped are always a better, more cost effective option then police when the revocation (arrest of defendant) of a bail bond is lawful.

Bail Agents can and will protect all persons on private property of client and public property. Bail Agents have a constitutional contractual obligation to the client and District Court.

Police have a great deal of immunity against taking any action under the "public duty doctrine." Police are not obligated to act on any citizens' behalf. Bail agents are obligated to act on behalf of an individual, defendant, cosigner, surety Insurance company, and public.

1. Bail Agents have more authority on private property and bail bonds than police based on constitutional civil contract law. In addition, bail agents represent the property owners or cosigners of a bail bond and the producer known as Surety the Insurance Company. The police, even off duty, have to follow the guidelines set forth in the 4th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. Bail Agents do not have to follow 4th and 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution because of constitutional civil contract law.

2. The police are not allowed to speak to anyone unless they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime may be afoot. Further, they must be able to articulate this suspicion in clear language. Bail Agents can interact with anyone at any time. Because they do not represent the Government and the Constitution does not apply to bail agents.

3. There are also civil law issues. Police work in the "criminal realm". They are not allowed to become involved in civil matters or determine legality of civil contract law agreements between a bail agent and defendant. Private property owner rights, surety bail bonds, lease agreements and other such issues are civil contract matters. The police have no knowledge or responsibility in these areas. Bail Agents have knowledge of a signed civil contract that provides authority and responsibility to enforce conditions of defendant's release. Bail Agents operate in both the civil and criminal realm. This is also another area that confuses police and prosecutors... Bail Agents can move freely between civil and criminal matters because of Federal and State statutory authority that is protected by the U.S. Supreme Court and State of Idaho preemption Idaho Title 18 and the Bail Act that protect the Bail Agent from any City ordinance that violate this supreme authority.

4. Arrest powers by Bail Agents can arrest for any City, County, and State or Federal law violated in their presence just like the police. They can also arrest for crimes not committed in their presence under specific circumstances (felony bail jumping while assigned to surety), just like the police. Warrant less "arrest powers" and use of force are the same. Immunity is the only difference. Bail revocation (power of arrest) by a licensed Bail.

Bail agents are the only authority who can cross state lines and arrest a person on a Fail to Appear or pretrial revocation for a misdemeanor when defendant is enlisted on the agent's bail civil contract.

No government agency or authority has this jurisdiction to cross state lines to arrest anyone for any misdemeanor for any reason.

5
Agent applies to these arrest powers to both federal and state laws for the use of force which are covered under the U. S. Supreme Court, Idaho Bail Act of 2009 and State of Idaho Title 18 preemption act.

Introduction

"Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far legitimized and exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions). Bail Agent dominion is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the re arrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner."

Judicial endorsement of commercialized justice

"The commercial bail industry has proven to be as resistant to judicial obstacles as it has been to legislative efforts. Indeed, as Feeley (1983: 77) points out, legal challenges to current bail practices have met primarily with 'numbing defeats'. Starting in the early 19th century, appellate courts began handing down decisions that consistently supported the monetary-based system of conditional pretrial release."

Leary v. United States (1912), Nicholls v. Ingersoll (1810) Taylor v. Taintor (1872)

"Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions), and legitimized the bondsman's hiring bounty hunters as sub agents."

"Even appellate reviews of the commercial bail system by the a liberal Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren (1953-1969) yielded only minor limits on the broad common law authority granted to bonding agents and bounty hunters."

Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 1969; Livingston v. Browder, 1973;
Ouzts v.Maryland National Insurance Co., 1974

"In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court issued decisions such as Schall v. Martin (1984) and United States v. Salerno (1987) that articulate the judiciary's endorsement of preventive detention and the use of dangerousness assessments in bail decision-making processes. The courts have consistently displayed a willingness to endorse the privatization of a critical function of the criminal justice system and afforded judges, bondsmen, and bounty hunters considerable leeway in their respective decision-making capacities."

"Given the parallels in the ideology and proposed administrative structures, we submit that these rulings provide advocates of conditional post-conviction release with an important judicial footing upon which to justify and defend their proposed reforms to parole."

 

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/05/06/3789844/two-more-defendants-in-norteno.html

 

City of Nampa Idaho"Noble cause corruption"

 

 “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

 

Do I have your personal and financial support to clean this house of noble corruption? The Mayor and City Council are complicit by not correcting this unlawful action when given written notice to act.

 

I will hold the Mayor, City Council, Prosecutoir, Chief of Police, and Detective accountable and responsible for unlawful conduct and violating several Federal and State constitutional protections.

 

Do I file Prosecutor Misconduct with the Idaho BAR for disbarment and Police Misconduct with Idaho POST for decertification and a Tort Claim against the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to happen for false statement of material fact or law, respect for rights, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice to Bail Agent Robert Muse when The claim here is turned entirely on verifiable facts?

 

Did you know if you file a complaint against a City of Nampa police the forms has a statement you could loose your rights and face imprisonment and fine if they do not like your civil or criminal complaint (PDF available)?

 

HOW MANY PREVIOUS CASES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND DISMISSED?

IdahoCriminal Rule 16 - Discovery and Inspection

(a)  Automatic disclosure of evidence and material by the prosecution. As soon as practicable following the filing of charges against the accused, the prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control, or which thereafter comes into the prosecuting attorney's possession or control, which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment therefor. The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this paragraph extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of prosecuting attorney's staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case who either regularly report, or with reference to the particular case have reported, to the office of the prosecuting attorney. In addition, the office of the prosecuting attorney shall disclose the general nature of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, it intends to introduce at trial in accordance with the provisions of Rule 404(b) of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. 

 

FACTS TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH. The standard of probable cause is a very versatile one. It is versatile in that virtually any kind of fact may be an element of showing someone's guilt. The only limitation at all, as far as facts are concerned, is that they must be facts taken in good faith. Any fact may be taken from any source so long as the law enforcement officer believes the fact to be true. If an officer knowingly attempts to use a false fact as part of his probable cause, any action that he takes will be unlawful. The purpose of gathering facts to establish probable cause is for the law enforcement officer, by facts, to establish a personal belief in guilt. If the officer knows his facts are not true, he is not only committing fraud but he is also placing himself in a position where he can be sued civilly or criminally for misconduct in office. Because the constitutional concept of probable cause is facts under oath, an officer who knowingly embraces falsehood is toying with perjury.

 

 

“Judge Gutierrez noted the prosecutor's duties to the people of the state, including the duties to the defendant.”

 

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). . . it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a culture where ‘win-at-any-cost’ prosecution is not permitted.

 

United Statesv. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent.

 

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

 

Preamble, Model Code of Professional [T]he Constitution prescribes a floor below which protections may not fall, rather than a ceiling beyond which they may not rise. Responsibility, on the other hand, encompasses the attorney’s duty to ‘maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.’

 

United Statesv. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 839 (2d Cir. 1988). Responsibility (1981). The Code is designed to safeguard the integrity of the profession and preserve public confidence in our system of justice.

 

"Noble cause corruption"

 

as an type of ethical corruption according to the field of Police Ethics, noble cause corruption is police misconduct "committed in the name of good ends." In Police Ethics it argued that some of the best officers are often the most susceptible to noble cause corruption. According to professional policing literature, noble cause corruption includes the manipulation of facts on reports or through testimony in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

 

I and many attorneys believe this current citation and misdemeanor criminal charges are now frivolous with evidence “Noble Cause Corruption” from the most recent amended charge.

 

 Nampa City Attorney White stated in the last 180 days this law is unconstitutional that the city police department served me – the city has currently passed a new ordinance to replace this unconstitutional law with an ordinance that includes self defense.

 

The police filed the citation and the Prosecutor continues to prosecute.

The criminal charge is discharging a firearm with less lethal rubber projectiles in the city limits while performing my duties as licensed Bail Agent lawfully arresting a resisting felon (10 years of many convicted felony crimes) who cut his ankle monitor and committed 4 new crimes in the City of Nampa.

 

This defendant was been indicted By U.S. Attorneys indicted for as possible Cartel Norteno gang members for distribution of drugs and firearms trafficking since this incident in the last 60 days.

 

 I performed my state and federal duty as authorized by the U. S. and Idaho Constitutional laws. I was told by a Police shift commander today they did not like the manner in which I discharged my firearm when using low impact less lethal rubber projectiles to neutralize the threat to myself, public, and the resisting and fleeing offender. With flashing yellow lights and decals on vehicle all the defendant had to do was stop resisting and allow the arrest.

 

This is an example of “Noble Cause Corruption” the police department used for this current unconstitutional law that states only a police officer can discharge a firearm which violates the state self defense law and Bill of Rights 2nd amendment.

 

Now they realize their error and have amended to inattentive driving (misdemeanor) if I plead guilty they will drop the firearm charge.

 

I choose not to accept this plea on December 29, 2014 and head to court February 25th, 2014 facing two charges.

 

Judge Jackson seemed to wonder why this proceeding was even happening and their appeared confusion by a new young prosecutor who acknowledged he had no knowledge of this case history or why we there. The Judge Jackson apologized for the court that this was unnecessary hearing the prosecutor summoned Robert Muse to attend that served no legal purpose. 

 

History of false investigations in the since July 2014 by Idaho Law Enforcement.

 

1. Impersonating a police officer - result unfounded

2. Intimidating a witness - result unfounded

 

 

3. Discharge of a firearm - result pending - unconstitutional city ordinance utilized before city council passed new ordinance.

 

a. Canyon County Prosecutor was referred my case but found no wrong doing but the City Prosecutor is pursuing the charge.

 

b. There is a TV news spot by County Prosecutor explaining that a bail agent has more authority than police for enforcement on bail civil contract.

 

4. Breaking and entering into my own office - result unfounded

 

5. Unlawful arrest and or kidnapping - result unfounded. Arrest approved and letter written by State Attorney General and Idaho Department of Insurance.

 

6. New charge inattentive driving- result pending - No police officer as a witness.

 

In my 10 years as licensed bail agent I have never had a complaint or criminal investigation or charges. Why? Good question.

 

With all the latest national fear of corruption and misuse of authority - I now find it is in my back yard.

Do I have your personal and financial support to clean this house of noble corruption?

Bail Agent and Owner …..Concerned Citizen Robert Muse and

 

Judicial endorsement of commercialized justice

The commercial bail industry has proven to be as resistant to judicial obstacles as it has been to legislative efforts. Indeed, as Feeley (1983: 77) points out, legal challenges to current bail practices have met primarily with ‘numbing defeats’. Starting in the early 19th century, appellate courts began handing down decisions that consistently supported the monetary-based system of conditional pretrial release.

Leary v. United States (1912),

Nicholls v. Ingersoll (1810) 

Taylorv. Taintor (1872)

 

Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions), and legitimized the bondsman’s hiring bounty hunters as sub agents.

 

Even appellate reviews of the commercial bail system by the a liberal Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren (1953–1969) yielded only minor limits on the broad common law authority granted to bonding agents and bounty hunters

 

Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 1969;

Livingstonv. Browder, 1973;

Ouzts v.Maryland National Insurance Co., 1974

 

In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court issued decisions such as Schall v. Martin (1984) and United States v. Salerno (1987) that articulate the judiciary’s endorsement of preventive detention and the use of dangerousness assessments in bail decision-making processes. The courts have consistently displayed a willingness to endorse the privatization of a critical function of the criminal justice system and afforded judges, bondsmen, and bounty hunters considerable leeway in their respective decision-making capacities.

 

Given the parallels in the ideology and proposed administrative structures, we submit that these rulings provide advocates of conditional post-conviction release with an important judicial footing upon which to justify and defend their proposed reforms to

 

parole.

 

Cases

Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 299 F. Supp. 429 (1969).

Leary V. United States, 224 U.S. 567 (1912).

Livingston v. Browder, 285 S.Ct. 923 (1973).

Nicholls v. Ingersoll, 7 Johns. 145 (1810).

Ouzts v. Maryland National Insurance Co., 505 F.2d 547 (1974).

Schall v. Martin, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984).

 

 

 

 

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/comliens.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of NampaIdaho"Noble cause corruption"

 

 “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

 

Do I have your personal and financial support to clean this house of noble corruption? The Mayor and City Council are complicit by not correcting this unlawful action when given written notice to act.

 

I will hold the Mayor, City Council, Prosecutoir, Chief of Police, and Detective accountable and responsible for unlawful conduct and violating several Federal and State constitutional protections.

 

Do I file Prosecutor Misconduct with the Idaho BAR for disbarment and Police Misconduct with Idaho POST for decertification and a Tort Claim against the Mayor and City Council for allowing this to happen for false statement of material fact or law, respect for rights, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice to Bail Agent Robert Muse when The claim here is turned entirely on verifiable facts?

 

Did you know if you file a complaint against a City of Nampa police the forms has a statement you could loose your rights and face imprisonment and fine if they do not like your civil or criminal complaint (PDF available)?

 

HOW MANY PREVIOUS CASES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND DISMISSED?

IdahoCriminal Rule 16 - Discovery and Inspection

(a)  Automatic disclosure of evidence and material by the prosecution. As soon as practicable following the filing of charges against the accused, the prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control, or which thereafter comes into the prosecuting attorney's possession or control, which tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment therefor. The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this paragraph extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of prosecuting attorney's staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case who either regularly report, or with reference to the particular case have reported, to the office of the prosecuting attorney. In addition, the office of the prosecuting attorney shall disclose the general nature of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, it intends to introduce at trial in accordance with the provisions of Rule 404(b) of the Idaho Rules of Evidence.   

FACTS TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH. The standard of probable cause is a very versatile one. It is versatile in that virtually any kind of fact may be an element of showing someone's guilt. The only limitation at all, as far as facts are concerned, is that they must be facts taken in good faith. Any fact may be taken from any source so long as the law enforcement officer believes the fact to be true. If an officer knowingly attempts to use a false fact as part of his probable cause, any action that he takes will be unlawful. The purpose of gathering facts to establish probable cause is for the law enforcement officer, by facts, to establish a personal belief in guilt. If the officer knows his facts are not true, he is not only committing fraud but he is also placing himself in a position where he can be sued civilly or criminally for misconduct in office. Because the constitutional concept of probable cause is facts under oath, an officer who knowingly embraces falsehood is toying with perjury.

 

 

“Judge Gutierrez noted the prosecutor's duties to the people of the state, including the duties to the defendant.”

 

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). . . it is the responsibility of the United States Attorney and his senior staff to create a culture where ‘win-at-any-cost’ prosecution is not permitted.

 

United Statesv. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent.

 

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

 

Preamble, Model Code of Professional [T]he Constitution prescribes a floor below which protections may not fall, rather than a ceiling beyond which they may not rise. Responsibility, on the other hand, encompasses the attorney’s duty to ‘maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.’

 

United Statesv. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 839 (2d Cir. 1988). Responsibility (1981). The Code is designed to safeguard the integrity of the profession and preserve public confidence in our system of justice.

 

"Noble cause corruption"

 

as an type of ethical corruption according to the field of Police Ethics, noble cause corruption is police misconduct "committed in the name of good ends." In Police Ethics it argued that some of the best officers are often the most susceptible to noble cause corruption. According to professional policing literature, noble cause corruption includes the manipulation of facts on reports or through testimony in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

 

I and many attorneys believe this current citation and misdemeanor criminal charges are now frivolous with evidence “Noble Cause Corruption” from the most recent amended charge.

 

 Nampa City Attorney White stated in the last 180 days this law is unconstitutional that the city police department served me – the city has currently passed a new ordinance to replace this unconstitutional law with an ordinance that includes self defense.

 

The police filed the citation and the Prosecutor continues to prosecute.

The criminal charge is discharging a firearm with less lethal rubber projectiles in the city limits while performing my duties as licensed Bail Agent lawfully arresting a resisting felon (10 years of many convicted felony crimes) who cut his ankle monitor and committed 4 new crimes in the City of Nampa.

 

This defendant was been indicted By U.S. Attorneys indicted for as possible Cartel Norteno gang members for distribution of drugs and firearms trafficking since this incident in the last 60 days. http://www.idahopress.com/news/local/indicted-for-alleged-nampa-caldwell-gang-activity/article_a5bab318-7465-11e4-a8cb-b76ece7edebb.html

 

 I performed my state and federal duty as authorized by the U. S. and Idaho Constitutional laws. I was told by a Police shift commander today they did not like the manner in which I discharged my firearm when using low impact less lethal rubber projectiles to neutralize the threat to myself, public, and the resisting and fleeing offender. With flashing yellow lights and decals on vehicle all the defendant had to do was stop resisting and allow the arrest.

 

This is an example of “Noble Cause Corruption” the police department used for this current unconstitutional law that states only a police officer can discharge a firearm which violates the state self defense law and Bill of Rights 2nd amendment.

 

Now they realize their error and have amended to inattentive driving (misdemeanor) if I plead guilty they will drop the firearm charge.

 

I choose not to accept this plea on December 29, 2014 and head to court February 25th, 2014 facing two charges.

 

Judge Jackson seemed to wonder why this proceeding was even happening and their appeared confusion by a new young prosecutor who acknowledged he had no knowledge of this case history or why we there. The Judge Jackson apologized for the court that this was unnecessary hearing the prosecutor summoned Robert Muse to attend that served no legal purpose. 

 

History of false investigations in the since July 2014 by Idaho Law Enforcement.

1. Impersonating a police officer - result unfounded

2. Intimidating a witness - result unfounded

3. Discharge of a firearm - result pending - unconstitutional city ordinance utilized before city council passed new ordinance.

a. Canyon County Prosecutor was referred my case but found no wrong doing but the City Prosecutor is pursuing the charge. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2014/08/28/bounty-hunters-under-attack-by-nampa-woman/14764831/

b. There is a TV news spot by County Prosecutor explaining that a bail agent has more authority than police for enforcement on bail civil contract.

4. Breaking and entering into my own office - result unfounded

5. Unlawful arrest and or kidnapping - result unfounded. Arrest approved and letter written by State Attorney General and Idaho Department of Insurance.

6. New charge inattentive driving- result pending - No police officer as a witness.

 

In my 10 years as licensed bail agent I have never had a complaint or criminal investigation or charges. Why? Good question.

 

With all the latest national fear of corruption and misuse of authority - I now find it is in my back yard.

Do I have your personal and financial support to clean this house of noble corruption?

Bail Agent and Owner …..Concerned Citizen Robert Muse and

 

Judicial endorsement of commercialized justice

The commercial bail industry has proven to be as resistant to judicial obstacles as it has been to legislative efforts. Indeed, as Feeley (1983: 77) points out, legal challenges to current bail practices have met primarily with ‘numbing defeats’. Starting in the early 19th century, appellate courts began handing down decisions that consistently supported the monetary-based system of conditional pretrial release.

Leary v. United States (1912),

Nicholls v. Ingersoll (1810)  

Taylorv. Taintor (1872)

 

Each contributed to a judicial precedent that by virtue of a signed bail contract granted a third party surety full custodial rights over the accused, afforded the bondsman broad powers of arrest, custody, and retrieval over the accused (that far exceeded those of law enforcement agents without any of the due process restrictions), and legitimized the bondsman’s hiring bounty hunters as subagents.

 

Even appellate reviews of the commercial bail system by the a liberal Supreme Court headed by Earl Warren (1953–1969) yielded only minor limits on the broad common law authority granted to bonding agents and bounty hunters

 

Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 1969;

Livingstonv. Browder, 1973;

Ouzts v.Maryland National Insurance Co., 1974

 

In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court issued decisions such as Schall v. Martin (1984) and United States v. Salerno (1987) that articulate the judiciary’s endorsement of preventive detention and the use of dangerousness assessments in bail decision-making processes. The courts have consistently displayed a willingness to endorse the privatization of a critical function of the criminal justice system and afforded judges, bondsmen, and bounty hunters considerable leeway in their respective decision-making capacities.

 

Cases

Curtis v. Peerless Insurance Co., 299 F. Supp. 429 (1969).

Leary V. United States, 224 U.S. 567 (1912).

Livingston v. Browder, 285 S.Ct. 923 (1973).

Nicholls v. Ingersoll, 7 Johns. 145 (1810).

Ouzts v. Maryland National Insurance Co., 505 F.2d 547 (1974).

Schall v. Martin, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984).

 

Interpersonal distance social sitting closet tot he jury

sciencehttp://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/FJC2010/fjc2010_Prosecutorial_Misconduct.pdf

 

 

http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/comliens.htm

Currently there is no media on this page

 

 

 

TITLE 18

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 33

FIREARMS, EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DEADLY WEAPONS

18-3305.  Discharge of arms aimed at another. Any person who shall discharge, without injury to any person, any firearm, while intentionally, without malice, aimed at or toward any person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six (6) months, or both, at the discretion of the court.

 

IDAHO LAWS PURPOSEFULLY VAGUE Idaho doesn’t have a “stand your ground” law, Leroy explained — someone who uses force when he could have retreated may be subject to criminal prosecution. But maybe not. The code is full of difficult-to-define words like “sufficient,” “intent,” and “endeavor” — not to mention the previously discussed “reasonable” — all of which might mean different things depending on the facts and evidence of the case. And that’s by design. The whole point, Leroy said, is for the jury to examine the facts and then apply the principles.

Read more at: http://www.idahopress.com/members/self-defense-laws-in-idaho/article_46955bc8-f981-11e2-a10e-0019bb2963f4.html
Get all your breaking and local news from the Idaho Press-Tribune at www.idahopress.com

 

 

A person who is not the aggressor in an encounter may use reasonable force against an adversary if he or she reasonably believes there’s immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm, and that the use of force is necessary to avoid this danger. Note that forms of the word “reasonable” appear twice in the above sentence. That’s important, Leroy said, and it’s ultimately a jury’s job to decide what it means. That’s the basic concept in a nutshell, although it’s further refined from there. Deadly force may be considered reasonable against a deadly attack, and non-deadly force may be reasonable against a non-deadly attack, but if deadly force is used against a non-deadly threat, it probably won’t be deemed reasonable.

Read more at: http://www.idahopress.com/members/self-defense-laws-in-idaho/article_46955bc8-f981-11e2-a10e-0019bb2963f4.html
Get all your breaking and local news from the Idaho Press-Tribune at www.idahopress.com

 

I used less lethal against a deadly force of a moving motorcycle.

 

The Supreme Court has equally emphasized the fact that the burden of proof at the arrest and search level is merely "a reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime" and not the criminal trial burden of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

The essence of probable cause is facts. Suspicious facts, sinister facts, and guilt-laden facts in combination, when a criminal act has been committed, create probable cause. The probable cause formula is based not only on actual facts but also on probable facts. In other words, an officer can be wrong about the facts that he is acting on, but so long as he accepts them in good faith, they can be used to justify an arrest or a search.

 

PROBABLE, NOT ACTUAL, CAUSE The stronger the combinations of facts and circumstances showing guilt, the stronger the probable cause to make an arrest. It is essential to realize that the term "probable" means exactly that. If the police officer (Agent), acting in an emergency, gathers facts or apparent facts in good faith, he will be judged on those facts regardless of whether or not they are actually true. So long as the officer accepts his facts in good faith, he may rely on them even if they subsequently turn out to be wrong.

 

Authorized arrest of defendant by surety and exoneration of bail prior to conditional forfeiture.

 

The sureties of bail may, at any time before a conditional forfeiture is entered against them, exonerate themselves by surrendering the defendant to the jail having the authority of keeping custody of prisoners of the court having jurisdiction of defendant's case. For that purpose, the surety may arrest the defendant on a bondsman's warrant at any place in the state, or may authorize another person to arrest the defendant by an endorsement in writing on the warrant. The bondsman's warrant shall be issued as required by this chapter and a certified copy of the undertaking shall be attached thereto.

 

 

 

Objection

 

 

TITLE 19 CRIMINAL PROCEDURECHAPTER 29

IDAHOBAIL ACT19-2905.

 

(2)  "Bail agent" means a producer licensed by the state of Idaho in the line of surety insurance who is authorized by an insurer to execute or countersign undertakings of bail in connection with judicial criminal proceedings.

(3)  "Bail bond" means a financial guarantee, posted by a bail agent and underwritten by a surety insurance company, that the defendant will appear as ordered.

Objection hearing

(7)  "Conditions of release" means any reasonable restrictions, conditions or prohibitions placed upon the defendant's activities, movements, associations or residences by the court, excluding the court order requiring the defendant to appear in court.

ID ICJI 1520 SELFDEFENSE VICTIM’S REPUTATION

Jury Instruction
Idaho

  Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions (I.C.J.I.) ID ICJI 1520 SELFDEFENSE  VICTIM’S REPUTATION Evidence has been admitted concerning the reputation of the victim for being quarrelsome, violent and dangerous.  You may consider this evidence only for the limited purpose of making your determination as to [the reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs under the circumstances then apparent to the defendant, but only if the defendant was aware of such reputation] [whether the victim was the aggressor].

Aware -  Repository

Police reports declare him the aggressor.

Indictment federal weapon charges and drugs after arrest.

 

 

First Criminal violation:

 

Subpoena

 

CanyonCountyProsecutor, Court GPS Monitor Officer and Jail Commander

 

Cutting of a GPS ankle monitor is a felony is the destruction of government property and treated as an escape from the jail with a warrant issued for the arrest of the defendant.

The defendant must pay to replace damaged or lost GPS monitoring device.

 

18-2506. Escape by one charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor -- Escape by a juvenile from custody.

 

(1) (a) Every prisoner charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor who is confined in any county jail or other place or who is engaged in any county work outside of such jail or other place, or who is in the lawful custody of any officer or person, who escapes or attempts to escape there from, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Escape includes the intentional act of leaving the area of restriction set forth in a court order admitting a person to bail or release on a person's own recognizance with electronic or global positioning system tracking or monitoring, or the area of restriction set forth in a sentencing order, except for leaving the area of restriction for the purpose of obtaining emergency medical care. A person may not be charged with the crime of escape for leaving the aforementioned area of restriction unless the person was notified in writing by the court at the time of setting of bail, release or sentencing of the consequences of violating this section by intentionally leaving the area of restriction.

(b) In cases involving escape or attempted escape by use of threat, intimidation, force, violence, injury to person or property other than that of the prisoner, or wherein the escape or attempted escape was perpetrated by use or possession of any weapon, tool, instrument or other substance, the prisoner shall be guilty of a felony.

 

Bail jumping which is another felony.

IdahoCode 18-7401 – Bail Jumping — Default in Required Appearance: Current as of: 2014

A person set at liberty by court order, with or without bail, upon condition that he will subsequently appear at a specified time and place, commits a misdemeanor if, without lawful excuse, he fails to appear at that time and place. The offense constitutes a felony where the required appearance was to answer to a charge of felony, or for disposition of any such charge, and the actor took flight or went into hiding to avoid apprehension, trial or punishment. This section does not apply to obligations to appear incident to release under suspended sentence or on probation or parole.

 

TITLE 19

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 29

IDAHOBAIL ACT

19-2921.  order of recommitment -- readmittance to bail. In its order revoking bail, the court shall recite generally the facts upon which revocation of bail is founded and order that the defendant be recommitted to the custody of the sheriff of the county where the action is pending to be detained until legally released. If the offense is bailable, the court shall fix bail in a new amount and impose any appropriate conditions of release.

 

 

Citizen’s Arrest

A private person may arrest another for one of the following reasons:

 For any criminal act committed in his presence;

 If a felony has been committed by the person, though not in his presence;

 If a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person committed it.

 

An arrest for felony may be made by a private person on any day and at any time. It is the duty of a person who has arrested another to quickly take him before a magistrate or deliver him to some law enforcement officer.

 

The first characteristic of the Constitution that needs to be emphasized is the fact that it is the supreme law of the land. Under our system of law the Constitution is of paramount importance, and all other areas of law must yield in the event of conflict. The laws of contracts, real property, negligence, corporations, and even criminal law are emphatically subordinate to constitutional law in this country.

 

Prosecutor will have to prove the bail bond civil contract is void – good luck on that.Unreasonableness - "Unreasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment is determined in large measure by examining whether or not the officer (Agent) exceeded the scope of his lawful authority. When an officer makes a search on his own, since he is using one of his awesome arrest powers, he must have sufficient facts that would justify an arrest before he initiates his search. Most "unreasonable" searches are ones in which officers did not have sufficient facts to justify the use of their arrest power.

 

Subpoena

 

State Attorney General represent the IDOI.

 

The legal interpretation of Bail Act 2009 and arrest authority and use of force as part of the self defense theory by a licensed bail agent or an appointment of a person by bail agent with an appointment with an affidavit to arrest defendant.

 

Explain contract law of a bail contract.

 

Subpoena

 

Why did not the Canyon County Prosecutor charge me with any violations of law after their review? They said no violations - none.

 

 

Victim indicted as a gang member U.S. Attorney 2014

 

18-8502. Definitions. As used in this chapter:

(1) "Criminal gang" means an ongoing organization, association, or group of three (3) or more persons, whether formal or informal, that has a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, having as one (1) of its primary activities the commission of one (1) or more of the criminal acts enumerated in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) "Criminal gang member" means any person who engages in a pattern of criminal gang activity and who meets two (2) or more of the following criteria:

(a) Admits to gang membership;

(b) Is identified as a gang member;

(c) Resides in or frequents a particular gang's area and adopts its style of dress, its use of hand signs, or its tattoos, and associates with known gang members;

(d) Has been arrested more than once in the company of identified gang members for offenses that are consistent with usual gang activity;

(e) Is identified as a gang member by physical evidence such as photographs or other documentation; or

(f) Has been stopped in the company of known gang members four (4) or more times.

(3) "Pattern of criminal gang activity" means the commission, attempted commission or solicitation of two (2) or more of the following offenses, provided that the offenses are committed on separate occasions or by two (2) or more gang members:

(a) Robbery, as provided in section 18-6501, Idaho Code;

(b) Arson, as provided in sections 18-801 through 18-804, Idaho Code;

(c) Burglary, as provided in sections 18-1401, 18-1403, 18-1405 and 18-1406, Idaho Code;

(d) Murder or manslaughter, as provided, respectively, in sections 18-4001 and 18-4006, Idaho Code;

(e) Any violation of the provisions of chapter 27, title 37, Idaho Code;

(f) Any unlawful use or possession of a weapon, bomb or destructive device pursuant to chapter 33, title 18, Idaho Code;

(g) Assault and battery, as provided in chapter 9, title 18, Idaho Code;

(h) Criminal solicitation, as provided in section 18-2001, Idaho Code;

(i) Computer crime, as provided in section 18-2202, Idaho Code;

(j) Theft, as provided in sections 18-2401 and 18-2403, Idaho Code;

(k) Evidence falsified or concealed and witnesses intimidated or bribed, as provided in sections 18-2601 through 18-2606, Idaho Code;

(l) Forgery and counterfeiting, as provided in sections 18-3601 through 18-3603 and sections 18-3605 through 18-3616, Idaho Code;

(m) Gambling, as provided in section 18-3802, Idaho Code;

(n) Kidnapping, as provided in sections 18-4501 through 18-4503, Idaho Code;

(o) Mayhem, as provided in section 18-5001, Idaho Code;

(p) Prostitution, as provided in sections 18-5601 through 18-5614, Idaho Code;

(q) Rape, as provided in sections 18-6101, 18-6108 and 18-6110, Idaho Code;

(r) Racketeering, as provided in section 18-7804, Idaho Code;

(s) Malicious harassment, as provided in section 18-7902, Idaho Code;

(t) Terrorism, as provided in section 18-8103, Idaho Code;

(u) Money laundering and illegal investment, as provided in section 18-8201, Idaho Code;

(v) Sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, as provided in section 18-1506, Idaho Code;

(w) Sexual exploitation of a child, as provided in section 18-1507, Idaho Code;

(x) Lewd conduct with minor child under sixteen, as provided in section 18-1508, Idaho Code;

(y) Sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, as provided in section 18-1508A, Idaho Code;

(z) Escape or rescue of prisoners, as provided in sections 18-2501 through 18-2506, Idaho Code;

(aa) Riot, as provided in sections 18-6401 and 18-6402, Idaho Code;

(bb) Disturbing the peace, as provided in section 18-6409, Idaho Code;

(cc) Malicious injury to property, as provided in section 18-7001, Idaho Code;

(dd) Injuring jails, as provided in section 18-7018, Idaho Code;

(ee) Injury by graffiti, as provided in section 18-7036, Idaho Code; or

(ff) Human trafficking, as provided in sections 18-8602 and 18-8603, Idaho Code.

 

 

 

FOUR ELEMENTS OF A CRIMINAL ARREST

In a criminal arrest there are four distinct elements that must coalesce to constitute a legal arrest. These four essential elements of a criminal arrest are:

Agent presence and Identification

1. An intent by the licensed Bail Agent to make an arrest.

BAIL ACT 2009

2. Real or pretended authority to arrest.               

Attempt through both presence and verbal commands with bail bond copy and signed civil contracts signed

3. A seizure or restraint, actual or constructive.

Pursuit by foot and vehicle

4. An understanding by the person being seized that he is being arrested.

Officer presence, verbal commands, and badge- legal documentation with bail bond copy and signed civil contracts

 

In a "criminal arrest" versus a "civil arrest" all four of these critical factors must be present in one degree or another. These four facts will always determine whether an arrest has occurred as well as the first vital arrest issue: the time the arrest occurred.

 

TITLE 19

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 29

IDAHOBAIL ACT

19-2914.  arrest of defendant for surrender. At any time before the exoneration of bail, the surety insurance company or its bail agent or the person posting a property bond or cash deposit may empower any person of suitable age and discretion to arrest the defendant at any place within the state by signing an affidavit extending such authority in a form approved by the supreme court.

TITLE 19

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 29

IDAHOBAIL ACT

19-2904.  bail, RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE and CONDITIONS OF RELEASE. The court may release a person on his own recognizance or set an amount of bail, and may impose any conditions of release. In making these determinations the court shall consider the following objectives:

(1)  Ensuring the appearance of the defendant;

(2)  Ensuring the integrity of the court process including the right of the defendant to bail as constitutionally provided;

(3)  Ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses; and

(4)  Ensuring public safety.

 

 

 

 

 

Use of force – Signed civil contract authorizing use of force

by defendant for resisting lawful arrest

 

 

________19-606.Person arresting may summon assistance. 

Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein including any law enforcement officer.

 

________19-202A. No private citizen in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger from disturbing the peace or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.

 

________19-610. what force may be used. When the arrest is being made without a warrant but is supported by probable cause to believe that the person has committed an offense, after information of the intention to make the arrest, if the person to be arrested either flees or forcibly resists, the individual may use all reasonable and necessary means to effect the arrest and will be justified in using deadly force under conditions set out in section.

 

Crimes committed in My presence

 

________18-6409. Disturbing the peace. (1) Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood, family or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or by threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting, or fires any gun or pistol, or uses any vulgar, profane or indecent language within the presence or hearing of children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

________18-901.ASSAULT DEFINED. An unlawful attempt to threaten verbally or other unlawful actions.

 

________18-903. BATTERY DEFINED. A battery is any: (a) Willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.

 

 

 

 

PERTINENT CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

 

The value of all human life should be appropriately weighed in the decision process. Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern whenever the use of force is considered.

a. Definitions:

1.      Reasonable Belief - When facts or circumstances the officer reasonably believes, knows, or should know; are such as to cause an ordinary and prudent person to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.

Factors to determine "objectively reasonable" force options.

1. The reasonableness of an officer's use of force is based upon the totality of the circumstances known by the officer at the moment the force is used.

2.       The following five (5) basic factors are considered when determining "reasonableness". Bearing in mind that the standard is "totality of the circumstances," these five (5) factors are not the only factors to be considered. The following have not been placed in a specific order of priority.

a.        Imminent threat of injury to an officer(s) and/or others. The greater the level of the threat is, the greater the level of force that may be used.

b. If the person is actively resisting seizure, the officer may escalate the justified (reasonable) level of force.

c.        Circumstances are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Some incidents take hours to resolve, while others are over in seconds. The tenser, uncertain and rapidly evolving the incident is, the higher the level of force that may be reasonable.

d.        The more severe the crime, the more force that may be justified.

e.        Attempting to evade seizure by flight may justify escalating the level of force.

Each situation is unique. Sound judgment and the circumstances of each situation will dictate the force option the officer deems necessary.

Types of Resistance

1.      Psychological Intimidation - Non-verbal cues in attitude, appearance, demeanor or posture that indicates an unwillingness to cooperate or a threat.

2.      Verbal Non-Compliance - Verbal responses indicating an unwillingness to comply with officer's directions or threat to injure a person.

2.      Passive Resistance - Physical actions that do not prevent the officer's attempt to control, for example, a person who remains in a limp or prone position.

3.      Defensive Resistance - Physical actions that attempt to prevent officer's control including flight or attempt to flee, but do not involve attempts to harm the officer.

5.      Active Aggression - A threat or overt act of an assault, coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.

6.      Aggravated Active Aggression - Deadly force encounter.

7.      Psychological Intimidation, Verbal Non-Compliance and Passive Resistance usually do not involve conduct sufficient to support criminal charges related to resistance.

 

DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE

 

A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider:

1. The extent of the right of self-defense.

2. By whom it may be exercised.

3. Against whom.

4. For what causes.

 

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack behavior. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights that the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

 

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defense of such as stand in the near relations of husband and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connection, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain. 

 

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defense of his person, property or habitation, against anyone who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

 

A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted:

 

1.    When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and;

 

2.     An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck. When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2nd. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction. A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards. As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.

 

The Force Continuum

 

 Always remember the level of force in your response is dictated by the situation. Police officers use the force continuum, a scale of force alternatives, to mediate the level of response used in a given situation. The force continuum is broken down into six broad levels. Each level is designed to be flexible as the need for force changes as the situation develops. It is common for the level of force to go from level two, to level three, and back again in a matter of seconds. 

 

The Force Continuum

More Force

 

 

Lethal Force

 

6               Deadly Force

We did not attempt to make contact to stop fleeing felon on motorcycle by using a police type pit maneuver or attempt to run over felon.

We did not discharge lethal bullets.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We stopped use of force and attempted to notify and follow felon until Nampa Police pursued felon and arrested with new criminal charges and later convictions of eluding police and receiving stolen property.

 

·         ID ICJI 1519 SELFDEFENSE DUTY TO RETREAT

Jury Instruction
Idaho

  Idaho Criminal Jury Instructions (I.C.J.I.) ID ICJI 1519 SELFDEFENSE  DUTY TO RETREAT In the exercise of the right of [selfdefense] [defense of another], one need not retreat.  One may stand one’s ground and defend [oneself] [the other person] by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge[; and a person may pursue the attacker until [the person] [the other person] has been secured from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary].  This law applies even though the person being [attacked] [defended] …

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         

           5      Less Lethal

Rubber projectiles were discharged to stop escaping felon from injuring any members of the public at the commentary as he was driving off road in dirt heading towards possible persons at commentary

 

ID ICJI 1518 SELFDEFENSE REASONABLE FORCE

State: Idaho

 

IdahoCriminal Jury Instructions (I.C.J.I.)

ID ICJI 1518 SELFDEFENSE  REASONABLE FORCE

The kind and degree of force which a person may lawfully use in [self defense][defense of another] are limited by what a reasonable person in the same situation as such person, seeing what that person sees and knowing what the person knows, then would believe to be necessary.  Any use of force beyond that is regarded by the law as excessive.  Although a person may believe that the person is acting, and may act, in [self defense] [defense of another], the person is not justified in using a degree of force clearly in excess of that apparently and reasonably necessary under the existing facts and circumstances.

 

Iaho Criminal Jury Instructions (I.C.J.I.)

ID ICJI 1522 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY  REASONABLE FORCE

When conditions are present which under the law justify a person in using force in defense of [another] [the person] [the person’s family] [property in the person’s lawful possession], that person may use such degree and extent of force as would appear to be reasonably necessary to prevent the threatened injury.  Reasonableness is to be judged from the viewpoint of a reasonable person placed in the same position and seeing and knowing what the defendant then saw and knew.  Any use of force beyond that limit is unjustified.

 

 

           4      Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser

Neither was used or displayed

 

           3      Empty Hand Control

Use of hand gestures to stop

 

           2      Verbal Commands

Verbal commands were givens before pursuit standing outside of recovery

vehicle

 

             1       Less Force     Officer Presence       

We identified ourselves with as Bail agents with badges as we exited the vehicle standing for felon to see.

 

Attempted to hit agents with a motorcycle and endanger public.

ID ICJI 1517 SELFDEFENSE

State: Idaho

 

IdahoCriminal Jury Instructions (I.C.J.I.)

ID ICJI 1517 SELFDEFENSE

A [homicide] [battery] is justifiable if the defendant was acting in [selfdefense] [defense of another].

In order to find that the defendant acted in [selfdefense] [defense of another], all of the following conditions must be found to have been in existence at the time of the [killing] [striking]:

1. The defendant must have believed that [the defendant] [another person] was in imminent danger of [death or great bodily harm] [bodily harm].

2. In addition to that belief, the defendant must have believed that the action the defendant took was necessary to save [the defendant] [another person] from the danger presented.

3. The circumstances must have been such that a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would have believed that [the defendant] [another person] was in imminent danger of [death or great bodily injury] [bodily injury] and believed that the action taken was necessary.

4. The defendant must have acted only in response to that danger and not for some other motivation.

[5. When there is no longer any reasonable appearance of danger, the right of (selfdefense) (defense of another) ends.]

In deciding upon the reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs, you should determine what an ordinary and reasonable person might have concluded from all the facts and circumstances which the evidence shows existed at that time, and not with the benefit of hindsight.

The danger must have been present and imminent, or must have so appeared to a reasonable person under the circumstances.  A bare fear of [death or great bodily injury] [bodily injury] is not sufficient to justify a [homicide] [battery].  The defendant must have acted under the influence of fears that only a reasonable person would have had in a similar position.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the [homicide] [battery] was not justifiable.  If there is a reasonable doubt whether the [homicide] [battery] was justifiable, you must find the defendant not guilty.

 

 

Each situation is unique. Sound judgment and the circumstances of each situation will dictate the force option the officer deems necessary. Depending on the circumstances, officers may find it necessary to escalate or de-escalate the use of force. It is not the intent of this policy to require officers to attempt to exhaust each option before moving to the next, so long as the level of force used is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

 

 

PERTINENT CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

 

The value of all human life should be appropriately weighed in the decision process. Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern whenever the use of force is considered.

a. Definitions:

1.      Reasonable Belief - When facts or circumstances the officer reasonably believes, knows, or should know; are such as to cause an ordinary and prudent person to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.

Factors to determine "objectively reasonable" force options.

1. The reasonableness of an officer's use of force is based upon the totality of the circumstances known by the officer at the moment the force is used.

2.       The following five (5) basic factors are considered when determining "reasonableness". Bearing in mind that the standard is "totality of the circumstances," these five (5) factors are not the only factors to be considered. The following have not been placed in a specific order of priority.

a.        Imminent threat of injury to an officer(s) and/or others. The greater the level of the threat is, the greater the level of force that may be used.

b. If the person is actively resisting seizure, the officer may escalate the justified (reasonable) level of force.

c.        Circumstances are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Some incidents take hours to resolve, while others are over in seconds. The tenser, uncertain and rapidly evolving the incident is, the higher the level of force that may be reasonable.

d.        The more severe the crime, the more force that may be justified.

e.        Attempting to evade seizure by flight may justify escalating the level of force.

Each situation is unique. Sound judgment and the circumstances of each situation will dictate the force option the officer deems necessary.

Types of Resistance

1.      Psychological Intimidation - Non-verbal cues in attitude, appearance, demeanor or posture that indicates an unwillingness to cooperate or a threat.

2.      Verbal Non-Compliance - Verbal responses indicating an unwillingness to comply with officer's directions or threat to injure a person.

2.      Passive Resistance - Physical actions that do not prevent the officer's attempt to control, for example, a person who remains in a limp or prone position.

3.      Defensive Resistance - Physical actions that attempt to prevent officer's control including flight or attempt to flee, but do not involve attempts to harm the officer.

5.      Active Aggression - A threat or overt act of an assault, coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.

6.      Aggravated Active Aggression - Deadly force encounter.

7.      Psychological Intimidation, Verbal Non-Compliance and Passive Resistance usually do not involve conduct sufficient to support criminal charges related to resistance.

 

=

ROBERT MUSE BAIL BONDS CALDWELL BLVD  NAMPA  IDAHO 83651   (208) 697-2167