Austin: Couple charged with breaking into bait car

[seamusTX]

Long story, short version: Austin police parked a bait car that had the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition. The man whose house the car was parked in front of called the police about it. The police told him not too worry about it.

At least one other neighbor also called the police.

Several days later, he decided to look in the car for some information that he could use to identify the owner. Opening the car door triggered a silent alarm. The police arrived and questioned him. He was not arrested at the time.

A couple of weeks later, in December 2007, police arrested him and his girlfriend at 6:30 a.m. in their home. They were charged with burglary of a vehicle.

The case is going to trial Wednesday.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/strange/ ... ng_2693919" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[dicion]

That's rediculous. They should not have even been arrested.

[Oldgringo]

Can you spell E-N-T-R-A-P-M-E-N-T?

[seamusTX]

This isn't what is called police entrapment. That requires a police agent to solicit a person to commit a crime, for example, asking where he can buy illegal drugs.

The officers who initially responded acted correctly, IMO. I don't who up the chain of command later filed a charge.

I think that is heavy-handed to the point of being a civil rights violation.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

I probably would have asked to have it towed-off after 3 days.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I probably would have asked to have it towed-off after 3 days.

Still is not right what is happening.

[Keith B]

I agree the people are probably telling the truth. But if you read the article, there are some suspicious things they did. I think that is what got the charges brought against them.

Snipetts from the article:

'One night, after Ledford and Ward came home with a movie and ice cream, Ledford decided he was going to take a look inside the car for some identification. He said he put on gloves so he would not leave fingerprints in case it turned into a crime scene.

He said he opened the glove box, looked in the back seat and tried to pick the trunk lock with a screwdriver.

“We did find an old repair receipt and it was about that time the police showed up, guns drawn and said 'get on the ground,” said Ledford.'

'The arrest warrant paints Ward as Ledford's partner in crime. At one point, Ledfords asks Ward if a car is coming. Spillers wrote, ‘This clearly indicates she was acting as a look out.’

I will bet if they had not had the gloves and not tried to force entry into the locked portion, there would not have been as much made out of it.

Hopefully the DA will come their senses and drop charges. If not, maybe the court case will play out in their favor.

[seamusTX]

Hopefully the DA will come their senses and drop charges.

The trial starts later this week. I think if the prosecutor intended to drop the charge, he wouldn't have pressed the case this far.

As for the gloves, I don't find that suspicious. A lot of people watch CSI and are aware of the risk of contaminating evidence. If there was a body in the trunk, he wouldn't want his prints or DNA in a crime scene.

One thing I can't understand is why he was trying to pick the trunk lock. Every car that I have driven for at least 20 years has had an internal trunk lid release, and the story said the key was in the ignition.

One of the ironies here is that the police can have a car towed after a couple of days if it's not moved.

- Jim

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I agree the people are probably telling the truth. But if you read the article, there are some suspicious things they did. I think that is what got the charges brought against them.

Snipetts from the article:

'One night, after Ledford and Ward came home with a movie and ice cream, Ledford decided he was going to take a look inside the car for some identification. He said he put on gloves so he would not leave fingerprints in case it turned into a crime scene.

He said he opened the glove box, looked in the back seat and tried to pick the trunk lock with a screwdriver.

“We did find an old repair receipt and it was about that time the police showed up, guns drawn and said 'get on the ground,” said Ledford.'

'The arrest warrant paints Ward as Ledford's partner in crime. At one point, Ledfords asks Ward if a car is coming. Spillers wrote, ‘This clearly indicates she was acting as a look out.’

I will bet if they had not had the gloves and not tried to force entry into the locked portion, there would not have been as much made out of it.

Hopefully the DA will come their senses and drop charges. If not, maybe the court case will play out in their favor.

The picking the trunk lock is a bit odd. However, The gloves and the lookout do not seem odd to me. He was in a strangers car, that was parked in front of his house for days, looking for information to lead to whos it was and did not want to get caught in it.

[Oldgringo]

Why do we use "fish bait"? What is a "bait car"?

I still say a second year law student could beat this obvious attempt to entrap the resident/s and in beating the charges, the defendant's attorney should also get a judgement excusing his client from court and legal fees.

[seamusTX]

Apparently, a bait car is a vehicle that the police park where car thieves might try to steal from the car or steal the whole car.

I have no complaint about the practice. You should be able to leave your car parked without worrying about some thug stealing or damaging it, and this kind of theft costs billions a year nationwide.

What I don't see here is the element of intent on the part of the accused.

- Jim

[chabouk]

If the car sat there for three days with the windows down and keys in the ignition, and nobody even reached in and stole anything off the seats (much less stole the car itself), I'd say they were targeting the wrong area.

[Kevinf2349]

If the car sat there for three days with the windows down and keys in the ignition, and nobody even reached in and stole anything off the seats (much less stole the car itself), I'd say they were targeting the wrong area.

and if it were a car parked outside of my house for 3 days in that state I would have been calling the law every chance I got and request a tow truck to remove it.

The police expect the publics help in preventing crime, they should have at least sent someone to 'investigate; or remove it when the first report requested it (IMHO)

Having said that I would probably remove the key, lock the doors and drop the key off at the local police station if it stood like that for more than a day.

[seamusTX]

... if it were a car parked outside of my house for 3 days in that state I would have been calling the law every chance I got and request a tow truck to remove it.

I got up one morning and found a van parked across my driveway. No person was visible, looking through the windows. I did not touch the vehicle, for reasons explained above.

A constable lives on our block. He happened to drive by and I flagged him down. He called in the license plate and got the name, address, and phone number of the owner (in about 20 seconds, BTW). The address was a few blocks away. He called the phone number. No one answered. He left a message. He also checked the vehicle for bodies.

I figured it broke down or somebody forgot where he or she parked, got sick, drunk, or whatever, and would show up to get it. Nope. It took about five days of calling the community service officer to get it towed.

I never heard the resolution.

- Jim

[Kevinf2349]

I got up one morning and found a van parked across my driveway. No person was visible, looking through the windows. I did not touch the vehicle, for reasons explained above.

Oh that would have really torqued me. I can tolerate somebody legally parking on my house front, but blocking my access would have definately resulted in call to the police and a request for a tow truck.

Impatient aren't I?