Deseret News | Reader comments: Man's attorney challenges SWAT team search

Reader comments
Man's attorney challenges SWAT team search

Anonymous | 12:20 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

Just whish you could of held out tell some real help arrived, dude.

Randall | 12:24 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

I don't think that the police have a right to remove anything without a warrant. Especially since in this article it stated that it was his "then ex wife" and she was in his house.

I have known as many psychotic cops as I have civilians in general and it seems that it is always "guns are evil, lets confiscate them, and make a big show to the media".

I think this man had a problem, an emotional one (and maybe temporary) and who knows what really happened? Was his wife unfaithful, what was she doing there if she was his "ex" and was anyone really threatened with harm or not? Nothing is said about whether any guns were pointed at her or not..

I personally have little respect for most police officers. I believe they thrive on having power over others and are one small step above the criminals. I think they like to escalate some situations.

Who knows what really happened and what was really said by whome? Since when do the police not record conversations in a hostage situation...;)

Randall | 12:28 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

I missed that they were married at the time above....;(

Comments continue below

Robie | 1:48 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

Utah County Sheriffs Dept. has no Authority to have a Swatt team, per contract with the County. They have defied this many times in the past few years, so why wouldn't they deliberately violate a citizens rights.
Also, it is terrible that police/sheriffs use the word of 1 person, regardless of age or relationship in a home, to violate the sanctity of that home after they have been told to leave and been refused entry. It is very common for them to push other family members to then give them permission once told no. This is an aggregious breach of constitutional rights and ought to be outlawed, period.
Now, on the other hand though, this gentleman is certainly asking for help by his behavior and actions. The war disturbed him and he deserves our help, he deserves good treatment for the trauma he sustained. Let's see he gets it.

Bob G | 4:24 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

SWAT teams are a cities military force and it is unconstitutional for cities or counties to have an army. Besides all they do is escalate a situation and their purpose is legalized killing of civilians or death to any objectors. A citizen is told they cannot object to illegal search and siezures and that he can't protect his home, his family, even his life from the demands of this army. SWAT was created to fight well armed drug dealers and drug lords and now they are getting involved in domestic disputes and their authority and purpose is being abused on all citizens. It's time to get rid of SWAT teams and return law enforcement to those who are supposed to protect and serve. Then a person in a home should have the last word authorizing any search and seizure processes. Police have done enough turning family against family, they have no right to usurp an individuals rights regardless of a situation. They take the job of law enforcement knowing the hazards and risks, they deserve no better protections than the citizens have. They have gotten too self serving and believe they are above the law.

Here we go again ... | 5:04 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

... bad mouthing the cops for doing their job. When are all you liberals going to get it? This guy caused the problem. The cops had permission from the wife, who had been threatened with a gun. They did what they should have and this time nobody died. Way to go cops.
If you don;t want to be bothered by the cops, don't break the law. It's that easy.

Training, Training, Training | 7:57 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

Better go back to the police academy. It is always best to get a warrant. That way these types of issues are moot. To many variables and to many other court decisions cloud the issues. You don't want to mess up a perfectly good case with a warrantless search. Once the suspect was secured, a judge was only a phone call away. A SWAT team ought to know better.

Desperation Tactic? | 8:11 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

Maybe we should look at it this way: When you've got a guy with PTSD who's obviously lost it and is threatening other people, is that really the time to drop everything and run through red tape for a SEARCH WARRANT? You rescue the people involved first and get the guy calmed down. THEN worry about paperwork!

I'm no expert in Utah law, and perhaps someone who is should explain this. But isn't the search warrant argument a bogus desperation tactic to begin with? His wife at the time--WHO HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO, RIGHT?--gave written consent for the search of their joint property.

As a danger to himself and society, and as the VERY REASON the search was needed to begin with, law enforcement's neglect in failing to ask him to consent to the search seems fully understandable. Right?

I'm astounded that he's even in a position to contest the issue, though it's just as well his rights are being reviewed. Don't forget, though--his ex-wife and kids have rights, too.

I hope this guy's getting the help he obviously needs. I hope the rest of the family is as well.

Anonymous | 8:38 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

When someone's life is in danger, than yes, the Police have every right to conduct a search and seize evidence.

Randall | 11:33 a.m. Oct. 4, 2008

Having been through a divorce there is a lot of "he said she said".

Being charged with various and sundry offenses is a far cry from being convicted of them.

I have never been convicted of more than a traffic ticket yet police have lied in court even for so small a matter as speeding.

In the news we frequently see police officers guilty of sexual misconduct, spousal abuse, and every other crime that is common to society. They are human and not sacrosanct.

I have a cousin and a good friend that are Sheriffs of their respective counties and believe me there is a lot of dirt that gets covered up and they have problems with officers breaking the law on a regular basis.

I especially love how even a few guns is always some form of "arsenal" instead of normal amounts of guns found in any hunters home...Maybe the media is to blame for that use of language.

WOW | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 4, 2008

A lot of far right and left meeting here. OK if you have a man with a gun(s) making threats towards officers or others and he will not come out of the home SWAT is the safest option for HIM and the community because if there is a safe way to get him out alive they will do this.

Also there is case law saying that if the spouse (and they were still married) gives permission, then officers can condcut a search. The suspect was heading to the jail so he could not object to the search.

No, the SWAT guys do not have problems with private gun ownership, nor do they wish to see peoples rights violated. But if you are crazy and have guns there may be a PROBLEM.

These guys do a difficult and thankless job and, unlike the hose draggers, they don't get much respect or praise until they're needed. So complain all you want they'll still come and save you when some thug has you hostage.

DR Don | 3:08 p.m. Oct. 5, 2008

"When someone's life is in danger, than yes, the Police have every right to conduct a search and seize evidence."

Got a Constitutional or legal citation for that statement?

Difficult Position | 3:26 p.m. Oct. 5, 2008

I work in Law Enforcement.

I have been accused of breaking the law in several instances by people I have been dealing with. I won't go into specific details but every person who has accused me had been caught doing something wrong.

I had a decision to make. Either ignor it. Or do something about it and deal with someone who is not going to like it too much. In some cases, it has been their word against mine.

In one of the cases, the judge ruled that their previous cases of getting caught (doing the same exact thing at the same exact place) could not be used against them. It was my word and that of other officers that convicted the person. It was also my word and the word of other officers that defended myself against accusations of misconduct and abuse.

There are attorneys (and others) who train their "regulars" to maintain a certain act when they are confronted by police.

The guy in this story was in a regrettable situation. Did police want it to happen like this? Nope!
They wanted to just talk to the guy. The guy escalated it. Good luck to the officers involved.

to Randall | 10:38 p.m. Oct. 5, 2008

I am amazed at your comments Randall. The authorities do a great job. Do they make mistakes? Sure they do, but they do much more good than bad. The wife was scared enough to text for help. That is all that is needed. I would rather make sure the wife and 4 children are safe than worry about a search warrant. The husband definitely needs help and I hope he gets it. I am also grateful the wife and children are safe. I am also grateful we have authorities who put their lives on the line to protect you and me. Sorry you have had bad experiences with the authorities. In the end, to me, lives are more important than search warrants.

Matt's sister | 7:55 p.m. Oct. 7, 2008

I'm so sick of hearing all these biased opinions by the public bashing my brother. To correct you all again..... my brother never threatened anyone with his guns, never pointed them at anyone, never held anyone against their will, and when the police came to his house, he explained he did nothing wrong (and he didn't. His wife (yes wife, not ex, they're still married) is the one who lied to the police about Matt's intentions with the guns which is the reason why the SWAT team was called and why his house was searched. So, yes, to go off someone's lies as justification to enter someone's home was wrong. They should have checked their source, and if they did, they would have found out they were grosely wrong in what they did, hence the reason for the drawing out of this trial.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.