Suspect in Pursuit Found Hiding in Home

A traffic stop in IB ended in Coronado early Saturday morning.

A man who led sheriff’s deputies on a pursuit from Imperial Beach into Coronado early Saturday morning was arrested after being found hiding in a house, according to authorities.

Just after midnight, a reserve lieutenant attempted to pull over a 2011 Toyota truck at 13th Street and Cypress Avenue for not having a front license plate, according to Sgt. Marilu Marcq. The male driver failed to pull over and drove into Coronado with sheriff’s deputies in pursuit.

The chase came to an end at the intersection of Isabella and E avenues after the truck ran over spike strips that Coronado police placed in the intersection of Orange Avenue and Glorietta Boulevard, according to Marcq.

The driver and the female passenger fled on foot but the passenger was soon apprehended and taken into custody without injury. The driver was able to get away despite a search that included a sheriff’s K-9 unit and helicopter.

As all units were clearing the call, undercover Border Patrol agents assisting in the search noticed a man who was arriving at his house, which had a window open. The man agreed to allow the agents to search his home, and the suspect was found hiding inside. The deputies who started the pursuit positively identified the suspect, who was taken into custody without injury.  

The truck was reported stolen in San Marcos on Wednesday.


  • Tiara

    What happened to protection from unreasonable search and seizure?
    I will copy the article in the discussion section.

  • titians

    We all know that Internet and communications technology is changing rapidly, creating huge opportunities for business innovation and individual self-expression.Most people are probably not aware, however, that privacy law is not evolving nearly as quickly. It is time to update legal protections to reflect the impact the digital revolution is having on modern life.

    Cloud computing — a bit of tech-jargon meaning the use of remote servers to store and process data — is a great example.

    The movement of personal and proprietary data off desktop computers and into "the cloud", which is made up of server farms and broadband connections, is a major disruptive trend in computing.

    Unless our laws change to account for cloud computing and other equally momentous technology developments, the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure will become a relic of the past.

    The federal law setting standards for government access to personal communications — the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — was written more than two decades ago, before the Internet took off.t has become needlessly complex, while leaving many new categories of data poorly protected. We need a broad-based effort to reform ECPA to offer greater protection for consumers’ information.

    Meanwhile, reform of ECPA will give service providers the clear rules they deserve and ensure that government agencies have access to electronic communications when justified in law enforcement and national security investigations.Increasingly, consumers and businesses alike are taking advantage of cloud computing capabilities by storing e-mail, photos, medical records and other data in the faraway data centers of companies and accessing the data via the Internet.

    The payoff for users is massive data storage capacity available at very low — or zero — cost and freedom from having to deal with upgrades and security issues.

    The downside, however, may be loss of privacy when a government agent or a lawyer with a subpoena shows up at the office of the cloud computing service provider. E-mail is one of the most familiar examples of the shift to cloud computing. In 1986, when ECPA was written, e-mail users would generally download their e-mails onto their PCs and those e-mails would often be deleted from the computers of the e-mail service provider.

    Nowadays, e-mail providers offer thousands of megabytes of storage and actively encourage users not to delete their e-mails, but rather to store them on the service provider’s computers — in the "cloud," if you will. Many individuals and businesses have years of correspondence and other records stored with these third parties.
    (REF URL
    References :

  • Iantha

    SEARCH AND SEIZURE, UNREASONABLE. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." To circumvent this prohibition, the government must obtain a warrant to search and possibly seize one’s person or property. The Fourth Amendment demands that such a warrant must be based on the sworn or affirmed testimony of a law enforcement official, must be specific as to the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized, and will not be issued "but upon probable cause."

    These strong protections against intrusion by the federal government into personal space have their origins in the hated writs of assistance that had been issued by Great Britain beginning more than a hundred years before America declared its independence. These writs were broad, general search warrants that the British Crown used to discourage colonial smugglers who were trying to evade various tax and trade restrictions. According to leading patriots such as James Otis and Samuel Adams, these writs of assistance were one of the prime reasons that anti-British feelings proliferated in the colonies. After American independence, most American state constitutions incorporated some form of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the First Congress in which the Bill of Rights was debated and the conventions that ratified those amendments easily agreed to include in the Constitution of the United States protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    The meaning of the Fourth Amendment was rarely at issue in the first century after it was adopted. Beginning in the early twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court began to grapple with the questions of what constitutes an "unreasonable" search and seizure, and what is encompassed in the notion of "probable cause." It has also made various exceptions to the general rule requiring a warrant. The Court has held that there are other kinds of searches that, despite the absence of a warrant, are still reasonable under the terms of the Fourth Amendment.

    One of these exceptions is a search during a valid arrest. If a police officer arrests someone without a warrant, incident to that arrest, the law enforcement officer may search that suspect for a variety of reasons, including the protection of the personal safety of the officer and to prevent the arrested suspect from getting rid of important evidence. These so-called "stop and frisk" cases, beginning with Terry v. Ohio (1968), ruled that police officers, even if they do not have adequate grounds to arrest the person in question, may conduct a limited search of a person’s outer layers of clothing by "patting them down."

    More generally, police may act quickly to see that justice is done. For example, law enforcement officials may conduct a search to prevent the possible loss of evidence, even if they have not yet arrested someone. In the 1973 case of Cupp v. Murphy, the Supreme Court allowed the warrantless testing of a dark substance under the fingernails of the estranged husband of a woman who had just been murdered. The Court reasoned that there was sufficient probable cause to outweigh the absence of a warrant. When law enforcement officials are in hot pursuit of a suspect, they also need not take the time to appear before a judge and obtain a warrant. The same generally holds true when police enter a home using a valid search warrant to look for a weapon used in a crime and during the search find illegal drugs in plain view. The drugs can be reasonably used as evidence because they were not hidden and therefore did not require an additional warrant.

    A more difficult set of issues and cases relates to those who are not suspects in criminal activity but who find themselves subjected to unwanted searches. A recent example is random testing for illegal drugs. Since those tested for illegal drugs are often not criminal suspects, are such searches and seizures of one’s bodily fluids by state or federal agencies a violation of the Fourth Amendment? The Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances drug testing is permissible, such as in the case of railroad employees involved in accidents or breaches of safety regulations. In the 2002 case of Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, the Court also allowed testing in the case of students participating in extracurricular activities in public schools.
    References :

Comments are closed.