• Comment

Wanted man takes ride from deputy

Posted: July 2, 2012 - 12:54pm  |  Updated: July 2, 2012 - 4:52pm

Twitter @ColumbiaCounty


A man wanted in Richmond County was arrested early Saturday after accepting a ride from a Columbia County sheriff’s deputy.

A deputy on patrol found Curt Dexter Owsley Jr., 37, carrying numerous items while walking along Washington Road near the entrance of Wildwood Park just after 1 a.m. Owsley said he was leaving Wildwood Park and walking to a home on Oak Spring Drive.

The deputy offered Owsley a ride and he accepted. On the ride, the deputy checked Owsley for outstanding warrants and discovered he was wanted in Richmond County for a probation violation.

Owsley was arrested and taken to the Columbia County Detention Center.

He was transported to a Richmond County jail, where he is being held without bond, according to jail records.

  • Comment

Comments (16)

Frank I

I'd be curious to know what

I'd be curious to know what the probable cause was that led the deputy to check for warrants. This one might be a fine line on abuse of the 4th Amendment


1st of all if

I knew I had warrants. The last thing I would do is accept the offer for a ride from police officer. Can we say clueless LOL


Carrying numerous items at

Carrying numerous items at 1AM?


Not the law

You don't need probably cause to check for outstanding warrants and the Fourth Amendment does not apply to this situation (just to search and seizure inside your home or your vehicle). And, yes, I am a lawyer,


@Dixie - I knew I liked you

@Dixie - I knew I liked you -- some of the time... : - ))


Right Dixieman

Amazing how many people think the law is all encompassing. You are quite correct, the Fourth Amendment does not apply and there is no probable cause requirement to check for outstanding warrants. And yes, I am a lawyer.

Frank I

which part doesn't apply, the

which part doesn't apply, the person or the papers?


Frank I: Text of the Fourth

Frank I: Text of the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." None of this applies to running a computer check to see if there are outstanding warrants, which is public information. There wasn't even a search here!

Frank I

Based on certain prior

Based on certain prior experiences I have difficulty in the accuracy of the statement that a warrant is public record. In addition, a simple computer check is a search. It is a search of ones identity, or papers. Hence my question, was there probable cause to search the man's identity?

Frank I


I will say however that I agree with stories.. If I knew that there were warrants, or even the possibility of a warrant having been issued for my arrest, the last group of people I would take a ride from would be law enforcement.



Frank I - the papers part of the amendment refers to the subject's papers. The deputy did not search any papers belonging to the subject, nor his person. He searched records belonging to the government - the warrant database.

Barry Paschal

Imagining a failure to check

I'm speculating on the outrage that would erupt if a deputy in such a situation did not run a warrants check, and unknowingly gave a courteous ride to a wanted rapist/murderer/horse thief.

Under that scenario, a warrants check not only is understandable, but essential.

Frank I

But how exactly is the deputy

But how exactly is the deputy to know that it MIGHT be that scenario, to assume automatically that this is the case? Therein lies the problem that we have been conditioned to think this is ok. Giving up freedom is ok if we're "secure".

Little Lamb


I've been led to believe that it is routine to run license plate numbers or to check for outstanding warrants. It just comes automatically. You don't have to suspect anything just to check.

Little Lamb


Imagine for a moment this scenario: the officer sees me walking along Washington Rd. at 1 a.m. way out in the country near Wildwood Park. Such a sight is not normal. So the officer asks me what I am doing, and I say I am walking to a home just up the road. Then the officer offers me a ride. What if I refuse the ride at that point? Well, the officer would politely ask me what my name is. Here is where I must make a critical decision — i.e., do I tell him my name (knowing that he will likely run the warrant search) or do I respectfully refuse to tell him my name, thus making him suspicious of me?


In custody

Anyone who is inside a police car is "in custody" according to the law. It may be voluntary but they have the right to check/search/question anything/anyone in their vehicle.