01-09-04

When robbing a bank, it may not be the smartest move to write the holdup note on a personal check. That's what led them to arrest two people in Salt Lake City, police said.

Witnesses told police a man and a woman walked into a bank and handed a teller a note saying they had a gun and wanted money. The note was scrawled on the back of a personal check.

The robbers left the bank with $1,300.

Witnesses wrote down the license plate number of the getaway car.

Police said the name on the registration matched the name on the personal check used for the holdup note.

After they were arrested, the suspects allegedly told police they wanted the money to pay a drug debt and buy clothes and cell phones.

Maybe the would-be robber missed the instructional video on how to hold up a bank.

It was nearing 3 p.m. Monday when a man walked into the BB&T at 1809 Greenbrier Parkway and handed a teller a note saying that he was robbing the bank.

To his surprise, the teller handed the piece of paper back.

“The woman looked at the note and politely slid it back to him and said, 'I can’t accept this,’ ” said police spokesman Tommy Kullman.

The man slid the note back again.

“This time, she picked it up, balled it up and threw it back at him,’’ Kullman said.

The man picked up the note and walked out of the bank and down Greenbrier Parkway.

Bank employees called police.

While the teller’s actions foiled the robber’s plan, Kullman said police don’t recommend such a response.

“We don’t want anyone to get hurt,’’ he said.

The man is described as black, about 5 feet 7 inches tall and about 180 pounds. He was wearing a black jacket and black pants.

Used with permission
Www.dumbcrooks.com
© 2004 Dumb Crooks

A Guide for Do-It-Yourselfers

HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate expensive parts not far from the object we are trying to hit.

MECHANIC'S KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on boxes containing seat covers and motorcycle jackets.

ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning steel Pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age, but it also works great for drilling mounting holes in fenders just above the brake line that goes to the rear wheel.

PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads.

HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you

attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.

VISE-GRIPS: Used to round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.

DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, splattering it against that freshly painted part you were drying.

WIRE WHEEL: Cleans rust off old bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprint whorls and hard-earned guitar callouses in about the time it takes you to say, "Ouc...."

HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering a car to the ground after you have installed your new front disk brake setup, trapping the jack handle firmly under the front fender.

EIGHT-FOOT LONG DOUGLAS FIR 2X4: Used for levering a lowered car upward off a hydraulic jack.

TWEEZERS: A tool for removing wood splinters.

PHONE: Tool for calling your neighbor to see if he has another hydraulic floor jack.

AVIATION METAL SNIPS: See hacksaw.

PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the lids of old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splash oil on your shirt; can also be used, as the name implies, to round off Phillips screw heads.

PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.

ROOMMATE HAS APPARENT AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO SEARCH OF RESIDENCE TO INVESTIGATE BURGLARY.

The defendant owned a trailer in which he lived with a roommate. While the defendant was out of town, the trailer was burglarized, and his roommate reported the crime to the local police department.

When an officer arrived to investigate the burglary, the roommate invited him inside and consented to the officer’s processing the trailer for evidence.

The roommate showed the officer around the ransacked trailer and provided an inventory of the items missing from his bedroom and the living room. He could not say whether anything was missing from the defendant’s bedroom, and explained to the officer that the defendant owned the trailer and was away from town on a hunting trip.

Both bedrooms and the living room were dusted for fingerprints. The officer later testified that the defendant’s bedroom door was not locked, and that the room had been burglarized and ransacked. Furniture and computer equipment had been moved; drawers had been pulled open; boxes were pulled from inside the closet; and a jewelry box on the defendant’s night stand was open and appeared to have been burglarized.

As the officer dusted the jewelry box for prints, he lifted the upper tray and discovered marijuana in the bottom of the box. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, and he moved to suppress the evidence.

At the suppression hearing, the officer explained that he thought the roommate’s permission to process the trailer included the defendant’s bedroom. No search warrant was sought or obtained because the officer thought the roommate’s consent to enter and search for evidence of the burglary was sufficient to justify his actions in the defendant’s bedroom.

The defendant testified that he was the owner of the trailer and rented a bedroom to his roommate. He did not give either the roommate or the officer permission to enter the bedroom to search for evidence.

Holding: “A warrantless search by law enforcement officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures if the officers have obtained the consent of a third party who possesses common authority over the premises or effects sought to be inspected.”

“Common authority” is established by showing that the person giving consent had “joint access or control for most purposes.” If the person who consented did not have “actual authority” to consent because he or she did not share access or control over the area, the consent nevertheless might be valid if that person had “apparent authority” to consent.

In Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, the Supreme Court held that a third party’s consent is valid if “the facts available to the officer at the moment [would] warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises.” But officers cannot rely on apparent authority if they are “faced with an ambiguous situation” and “nevertheless proceed without making further inquiry.”

The roommate led the officer to the defendant’s bedroom and told him that it appeared things in the room were “askew.” While the roommate did not expressly give the officer separate consent to search the defendant’s bedroom, leading the officer to the room made it reasonable for the officer to believe that consent for the trailer included the bedroom.

It was obvious to the officer that the bedroom had been ransacked, and he had been given permission to enter the trailer and process it. The roommate sought the assistance of the police in investigating the defendant’s bedroom, and not just the common areas of the trailer.

It was reasonable for the officer to believe that the defendant “would want a law enforcement officer to do a thorough investigation of the crime scene as quickly as possible based upon the consent of the other roommate there on location.”

Since the occupants of the trailer appeared to be common victims of a burglary who shared a loss due to the crime committed by an unknown third party, the officer “could reasonably believe that the roommates had the type of relationships that would permit access into each other’s bedrooms in an extraordinary circumstance like the burglary that occurred.”

The defendant was not a suspect or target of the investigation. The officer entered his room only to assist in pursuing the burglars. Once inside the room, it was reasonable for the officer to investigate the jewelry box because it was a “logical attraction to a burglar.”

Because it was reasonable for the officer to believe that the roommate had authority to consent to a search of the defendant’s bedroom under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the State met its burden of proving that the roommate had “apparent authority” over the premises. Whisenhunt v. State, No. 01-02-00660 (Tex. App. – Houston, 8-29-03).

From the Chaplain

Jesus Christ, whose birth we celebrate at Christmas, is not just a baby in a manger. He is not a character in a children’s story. He is far more.

The first time he came, it was in the form of a child. The next time he comes, it will be very clear just who he really is.

The first time he came, a star marked his arrival. The next time, the whole heavens will roll up like a scroll, all the stars will fall out of the sky, and he himself will light it.

The first time he came, wise men and shepherds brought him gifts. The next time he comes, he will bring gifts, rewards for his own.

The first time he came, there was no room for him. The next time he comes, the whole world will not be able to contain His glory.

The first time he came, only a few attended his arrival—some shepherds and some wise men. The next time he comes, every eye shall see him.

The first time he came as a baby. The next time, He will come as our King.

The End

From all of us here at Cuff ‘N Stuff, we’d like to thank our loyal readers for their support through the years.

We’d also like the thank those responsible for getting Cuff ‘N Stuff out each pay-period:

Marilyn Featherstone: Chief typist and editor, Marilyn edited Phil’s column each issue and was responsible for typing the Legal Issues. Marilyn also wrote the “From the Chaplain” column and was responsible for distribution of Cuff ‘N Stuff to all non-employees.

Randy Joy: Editor-In-Chief, Randy did all the layout and was also responsible for Dumb Crooks and for all the pictures and filler articles.

Reba Bradley: Distribution. Reba was the one that got the issues ready for distribution after printing to employees.

Chuck Gomez: Web site. Chuck transferred the set-up Cuff ‘N Stuff to the website and published to the World Wide Web.

Cuff ‘N Stuff has had some memorable issues that we consider keepsakes—the Y2K Issue, the 9-11 issue, and this issue, to name a few.

We’ll be going to an all electronic newsletter for S.O. employees distributed through our internal email.