Comments on: Geist Getting a lot of Attention

By: Rick Charles

Rick Charles — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:34:40 +0000

Looking at the video of the gate which closes off the back yard, I am curious as to the height of the latch from the ground. Did anyone measure that height? What kind of latch is it and would a 3 year old have been able to reach and operate it and open the gate? Decide from that if the police officer had reason to believe the child could be in that yard. Also, considering the distance from the gate to the corpse of the dog, it would seem that the officer would most likely have opened fire from such distance that he would have just as easily been able to safely withdraw without any need to protect himself in any other way. If the dog was attacking, there is now way that the dog has come from hiding behind anything as it would NOT have run in a direction away from the officer but would have made as direct an approach as possible. Again, this would NOT result in the dog lying in the position shown in the video. The investigation results certainly give the impression of the police brotherhood closing ranks to protect their own. Australia had/has a similar problem. (Part of history now)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/victorias-ban-on-book-snouts-in-the-trough-reveals-flawed-law/story-e6frg97x-1225938879708?nk=6ef116158457eaa99a90adb692bbc83e
So don’t go thinking it does not happen.

By: Jerry Salcido

Jerry Salcido — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:01:17 +0000

In reply to Josh Harris. Thank you for your comment. We stand by our analysis.

By: Josh Harris

Josh Harris — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:13:13 +0000

So I read a PDF where you analyze this case and and state that the warrantless search by Det. Olsen was illegal.

You base your opinion on the fact that there was no exigent circumstances, and you use the case of Lundstrom V. Romero. In that you state that there are very similar circumstances as the Geist case. But there is a huge difference that gives Det. Olsen his exigent circumstances.

In the Lundstrom v. Romero case it states that a neighbor heard a child being abused, did not see the act and by the time the police had arrived 40 minutes had passed. The decision by the courts was absolutely the right one.

In the case of the missing child that Det. Olsen was looking for, there was no doubt that the child was missing at the time Det. Olsen had entered onto Mr. Kendall’s property. The child was also only 3 years of age and non-verbal, making it more reasonable to look in many places that the child could access and potentially be. It is reasonable to believe that this child could be in danger and could suffer the loss of life and or serious bodily injury.