PLP01 – The Phantom Menace?

February 02, 2015

Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace? Wait… that’s not right…

"Don't Drive Angry!"

“Don’t Drive Angry!”

What’s Dave been up to? The Super Bowl ends on a fowl note. Did the Modesto Police Department really decide to not intervene in a burglary?


Posted on February 2, 2015, in News & Notes and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. I’ve just listened to the first segment of your first podcast… Of course, I liked it; I’m grateful for your explanation for the “upheaval” of my radio day. And I’m gladdened to hear that no animosity or “politics” was involved.
    I do wonder (…this will likely be addressed further on…?) how you intend to make money (Bread, man!) with this. Man does not live by bread alone, it’s true. But he does need his daily crust! (I mention this because I’m retired, trying to live off of a meager Social Security stipend. I have little lee-way with my budget, and as much as I’d like to continue listening to your show I’d also like to keep body and soul together. That is, I too have to eat: Not for me, Saint Francis’ “I need little, and that little I don’t need much”…)

    BTW: I’m also glad you’ve decided to -maybe- read emails!

    I can’t tell you how jealous I am, that you can spend as much time with your young so as this new circumstance allows! Good for you, Dave. (And, no doubt: Good for Ben too.) Best wishes.

    Now: On with the show! And thanks.



  2. Awesome job as usual. Glad to have you back in action!


  3. 3rd attempt to leave a comment…issues on my end I believe. Awesome job, as usual. Glad to have you back!


  4. Bravo Zulu on the inagural podcast!!

    As far as the teenage house party goes, it appears that there were no exigent circumstances that would have allowed police to enter the home. Reports indicate that there may very well have been numerous misdemeanors and infractions being comitted, but nothing that indicated that anything greater had/was occuring. It has not been shown that circumstances existed that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. The police had not been informed that the felonious taking of personal property by a knife weilding suspect had occured, so therefore had to base the decision of remaining off premises on what was known to them at that time. When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry. However, this exigency was not met, therefore the police have no cause to voilate the Fourth Amendment rights of the partygoers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: