Can you settle an argument?

[BaDaBooM]

I keep getting into these arguments with someone and it is annoying me how he spouts off like he "knows" things even though he has no facts.

We were watching a show and it showed some cops pushing into an apartment at the protest of who was at the door. I said, "Now that's not legal." and then he jumped all over me saying how they can enter whenever they want. He said if they think someone is in your house that they are looking for, it doesn't matter if you say, "no, you can't come in." He says they can come in anyway and that warrants only applies to searching for evidence.

Now I'm pretty sure they have to have a warrant. Am I wrong? I know probable cause comes into play. Like if they saw the person's car that they are looking for in your driveway. However they have to have a good reason or they can get in trouble/get sued afterwards right? I'm not sure if this is at the federal or state level, but I am in Ohio. I wish there was a site that had what the actual laws (federal or state) say about common subjects. Anybody know of one because I'm sure he'll say prove it (even though he never proves anything).

Last time I had to print out the agreement Clinton made with NK and make him read it before he would give up his notion that we never ever made any agreements with NK. I know, I know, ignore him... but he's becoming family so I have to put up with him. Maybe if I do this a few times he'll make sure he knows what he's talking about.

 

[Lithium381]

well why were they going in there?! what were the circumstances?

 

[iwearnosox]

You don't need a warrant if you have probable cause.

 

[BaDaBooM]

They were looking to arrest someone, but the person that answered the door was not who they were arresting. Anyway, the argument was less about the show and more about whether they can just come up to your door and say they are looking for someone and want to come in. He says they don't need your consent or a warrant.

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
You don't need a warrant if you have probable cause.

 

[iwearnosox]

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

 

[Moonbeam]

I get the same thing from the people on this board. Most of them don't see that I'm right and they are wrong. I don't know what you can do. I guess you just pray for them.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: aves2k

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
You don't need a warrant if you have probable cause.

 

[fatbaby]

I don't think you ALWAYS need a warrant.

A gunman could rob a bank, then break into someones house and make a standoff.

The swat team won't ask a judge for a warrant won't they?

Btw i'm talking out of my a$$.

 

[SOSTrooper]

I usually can't hold arguments because I can't think up things to say till I lie on my bed later that night. But on internet, I'm not as dumb somehow.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
You don't need a warrant if you have probable cause.

What is probable cause though? I asked him, "So they can just knock on anybody's door and you have to let them in, warrant or no?" I wish I could find the actual laws online.

 

[iwearnosox]

Look up.

 

[Moonbeam]

On second thought, it might be because he feels bad about himself and needs to think he's right so he doesn't have to be put in the inferior position he really fears he's in anyway. It takes a certain strength of character to admit you don't know. I wouldn't do that in a million years. You compete and crush the opposition regardless of whether you are right or not. Winning is everything. Screw feeling bad.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)

That's great! That's part of what I thought. However is there anything about if it is determined that there was no probable cause, then the cop's entrance was illegal? That would clinch a smackdown on him.

Edit: I wrote my last post before I saw yours, iwearnosox... disreguard

 

[ryzmah]

If they have probable cause they can look - If you feel that they didn't have probable cause you can argue that in court to dismiss any evidence, as well as a protest to your law enforcement authorities or a case in a civil suit as to how your rights were violated.

 

[melly]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

I keep getting into these arguments with someone and it is annoying me how he spouts off like he "knows" things even though he has no facts.

i agree, bloody annoying.

to answer your question, i studied law for a bit in highschool, and take a general interest in this area. law and order has also taught me a lot! it is not illegal for the cops to bust in on a house if they were chasing someone. people aren't evidence--they are either witnesses, suspects, or accused. search warrants aren't necessary to obtain evidence, either, if the homeowner doesn't object. But if they object, then the search would not be legal. for a cop chasing after someone who runs into a dwelling to hide, and the homeowner objected to letting the cops in, that could be seen as 'obstructing the law'.

 

[iwearnosox]

The determination of probable cause will be left to the judge hearing the eventual case, should one arise. It's different in every case.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: caramel

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

I keep getting into these arguments with someone and it is annoying me how he spouts off like he "knows" things even though he has no facts.

i agree, bloody annoying.

to answer your question, i studied law for a bit in highschool, and take a general interest in this area. law and order has also taught me a lot! it is not illegal for the cops to bust in on a house if they were chasing someone. people aren't evidence--they are either witnesses, suspects, or accused. search warrants aren't necessary to obtain evidence, either, if the homeowner doesn't object. But if they object, then the search would not be legal. for a cop chasing after someone who runs into a dwelling to hide, and the homeowner objected to letting the cops in, that could be seen as 'obstructing the law'.

Yea, I know if they are chasing someone. However what about if there was no chase. Say the crime was committed at another time and place and that detectives (I guess I shouldn't have said cops, cuz it made you think of beat cops) decided your house is where they needed to look for someone? Is that a situation that probable cause could be used, even if there was no evidence of a crime at this place/time? Also if it is found that their claim of probable cause is false, then can you press charges against the detectives? (I am assuming they entered and found nothing).

 

[BaDaBooM]

Found my nail in the coffin:

U.S. Supreme Court - Payton vs New York

 

[Mill]

Without reading this full thread I am going to go ahead and stop and say in the event of the pursuit of a felon, a law enforcement agency can enter a residence to make an arrest.

Edit- I see you found Payton vs NY...