Did Garland Code Compliance Officer and Inspector Execute A Phony Search Warrant?

Two signs made by homeowner and placed in yard surrounded by 8 foot
privacy fence. Code Compliance inspector saw signs and  executed
a phony search warrant.

What is the difference between a "phony search warrant" and an "illegal search warrant?"

An illegal search warrant is a document that was obtained in a legal manner and obtained from a judge. However, some aspect of it is determined to have not met the legal requirements needed to support itself in court when challenged. That is probably a crude definition. Here is an example:
A code enforcement officer who is the designated official from their department, submits a sworn affidavit to support a search warrant to the local judge or magistrate. The purpose of the affidavit is to give the judge probable cause and if the judge agrees, they sign the warrant and it can then be executed. If the warrant is challenged on the probable cause not being sufficient and holds up in court after the warrant was executed, then the warrant is deemed to be an illegal warrant.




A good example of a "phony search warrant" would be if a code enforcement officer wanted to prove a point to a resident. This officer has a bully type mentality and often times feel that they are above the law and operate without fear or concern of being held accountable if anyone decided to report their misconduct to city officials or the state agency that regulates licensing for code officers.
So, lets say a code officer was challenged by a resident they had issued code citations to for petty violations such as "permits a nuisance." The resident was upset because the code officer had to stand on the rail of his truck bed to be able to look over the 8 foot privacy fence from the alley. Granted, they have a right to be there but, did they have a reason to be there?
If someone else who has a line of sight into the yard, such as a neighbor from the 2nd floor of their house would need to complain to the city and that would be good enough for the inspector to look over the fence. But, what if there was no complaint? What if the code inspector just felt like finding out what was on the other side of the fence? What if the inspector saw signs in the yard left by the homeowner accusing them of looking over privacy fences without a warrant or probable cause?
Would that piss off a code compliance officer and prompt them to show the homeowner that they can do what they want?

At this point, there is a pissed off, head strong inspector who can't believe a resident had the nerve to tell them what they can or can't do so, they ask a fellow officer they work with to help them obtain a search and abatement warrant for the property. They will need probable cause to get a warrant though.
Five recent citations for code violations will support probable cause as being previous violations so, the code inspector writes an affidavit to support and submits it to the judge. Wait, let's assume the inspector knows the probable cause is not true after he finds out that the city prosecutor had just dismissed those tickets after the homeowner appeared in court and showed pictures to the prosecutor that showed the property was compliant. The code inspector ignores these significant facts and continues on with his quest to bully the homeowner. Since they already have the affidavit prepared, they decide to forge the judges signature on the affidavit and then they have a warrant written up but, rather than face the judge not sign it due to there being probable cause... The code inspector forges the signature of the judge on the warrant as well.

That is a phony search warrant and it is also a very ILLEGAL search warrant.
The really scary thing about the phony warrant is that Dawood Haq, a code compliance inspector (was not a licensed officer or officer in training at the time) with the City of Garland Code Enforcement, actually DID what is described above for a phony warrant.

What he did next was ask seasoned code compliance officer, Cheryl Reno to take the warrant and execute it. Dawood Haq didn't want to face the homeowner so, he asked to not attend the abatement for the nuisance and have another co-worker attend with Cheryl Reno.
The homeowner could do nothing but watch as two cleanup crews took two trailers full of items the code officers saw as a nuisance and items deemed to be improperly stored. The phony warrant specifically listed items to be seized along with some very vague definitions of other items that could be considered to match other city ordinance violations.

When the search and abatement were finished, the code officers were required, by law, to give the homeowner a complete list of items that were seized. The code officer was then obligated to give that list along with the return on search warrant to the issuing judge.
Since the judges signature was forged and the warrant was not legal, they did not complete those final steps.
The homeowner was still sent an invoice for $546 for the cost of labor and admin fees. A few weeks after the homeowner did not pay the invoice, the city placed a lien on the property.
The property that was seized was taken to the Garland auto impound lot and put in a muddy area, outdoors and not covered with any weather protection.
The homeowner could retrieve all of the property by paying a fee of $35 per day. The items deemed to be worthless and having no value were disposed of by the clean up crew before taking the rest to the impound lot. The homeowner was only able to retrieve what would fit in a truck he borrowed that same day after paying $35. The rest of their property was thrown away after two weeks.

Over six weeks after the phony warrant was executed, the homeowner decided they wanted to see and get a copy of the return warrant and list of items seized. They went to the Garland courthouse and made the request with the court clerk.
The clerk tried to reference the warrant using the citation numbers, the cause and complaint numbers and then by the property address. The clerk spent several minutes looking for it and told the homeowner he couldn't find it.
The homeowner said, "You can't find the return of warrant and list of seized items?"
The clerk responded by saying, "No. What I am saying is that I can't find the actual warrant." The clerk told me that a search warrant would be in the computer system for the City of Garland that he was logged into.
He asked to see the copy of the warrant the homeowner was given and the clerk told them that it did not look right. They said they see warrants all the time and what the homeowner was given did not look like a proper warrant.

The homeowner then went to the code compliance office and submitted a request for public information and specifically asked to be given a copy of the return on search warrant, a list of seized items and also a request to be given the identity of the other code officer present with Cheryl  Reno when warrant was executed.
They have ten business days to provide the information and if the city can't produce the documents.... It will prove that the code enforcement officers and inspectors engaged in extremely unethical misconduct and violated the code of conduct they vowed to follow to maintain their license held with the State of Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations (formerly maintained by the Department of State Health Services).
There will be evidence to prove the code enforcement officers and inspectors for the City of Garland, Texas are guilty of what is detailed above and the homeowner is prepared to stand up the the corrupt individuals who have been mistreating the resident homeowner.

Code Compliance officers and inspectors are NOT above the law and they will be held accountable for their misconduct.