• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cops enter woman's house without a warrant because....they don't think they need one

Between Hillary just blowing off the freedom of information act and now cops doing whatever they want/kill whoever they want our government has pretty much decided it can do whatever it wants to do as there is zero repercussions anymore.
 
TheSlamma said:
Between Hillary just blowing off the freedom of information act and now cops doing whatever they want/kill whoever they want our government has pretty much decided it can do whatever it wants to do as there is zero repercussions anymore.
Click to expand...

when were there repercussions?
 
TheSlamma said:
Between Hillary just blowing off the freedom of information act and now cops doing whatever they want/kill whoever they want our government has pretty much decided it can do whatever it wants to do as there is zero repercussions anymore.
Click to expand...
Get enough people screaming for "law & order" and "tough on crime" and you get overzealous policing.

At the same time, some recent SCOTUS cases are rather troubling with respect to the our protections against unreasonable stops and searches: Heien v. North Carolina (even though the cop was in error, it was in good faith, so additional discoveries of illegal activities, even with the illegal stop, are admissible in court), no-knock warrants, the relaxing of evidence-exclusion rules for evidence discovered due to improper procedures/police misconduct...
 
TheSlamma said:
Between Hillary just blowing off the freedom of information act and now cops doing whatever they want/kill whoever they want our government has pretty much decided it can do whatever it wants to do as there is zero repercussions anymore.
Click to expand...

So this was because of Hilary Clinton. Lol. I thought it was moreso because of the assault on freedoms after 9/11 and the patriot act.
 
emperus said:
So this was because of Hilary Clinton. Lol. I thought it was moreso because of the assault on freedoms after 9/11 and the patriot act.
Click to expand...
wow, your takeaway from my post was that I linked Hillary with this?

What are parents raising these days. Fail on so many levels.
 
TheSlamma said:
I don't know, lets ask Nixon and Johnson about their careers after their blunders and shenanigans.
Click to expand...

Were either found guilty of a crime? Either do some PMITA time?

Careers are one thing. If "officials" violate our rights, they should pay they price. Not just lose a job.
 
Its called Probable Cause.

A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. A warrant is NOT required for all searches and all arrests.

The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. A police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search and make an arrest. Probably cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt.

If a police officer stops you for speeding, he does not have the right to search your vehicle. But if he stops you and smells alcohol and your eyes are bloodshot, he does have the right to detain you and search you looking for drugs and alcohol under the probable cause rule.
For more info, see Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
Raizinman said:
Its called Probable Cause.

A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. A warrant is NOT required for all searches and all arrests.

The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. A police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search and make an arrest. Probably cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt.

If a police officer stops you for speeding, he does not have the right to search your vehicle. But if he stops you and smells alcohol and your eyes are bloodshot, he does have the right to detain you and search you looking for drugs and alcohol under the probable cause rule.
For more info, see Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Exactly when was it that you went retarded?

The police have no probable cause to search your house without a warrant if they think a person might be there.
 
If they are in hot pursuit a fleeing felon (as they say they are), they don't need a warrant. I have no idea if they actually were pursuing a fleeing felon, but if they were this fits into a clearly-established exception to the requirement of a search warrant. I would be skeptical of whether this was hot pursuit, though, since they don't seem to be acting with much urgency, and the officer says someone told them the suspect was there (as opposed to them chasing him into the apartment).
 
Last edited:
TheSlamma said:
wow, your takeaway from my post was that I linked Hillary with this?

What are parents raising these days. Fail on so many levels.
Click to expand...

Seeing that you put Hilarys name in your post, you did link Hilary with this. Or is there some other reason you brought her name up in this thread?
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
If they are pursing a fleeing felon (as they say they are), they don't need a warrant. I have no idea if they actually were pursuing a fleeing felon, but if they were this fits into a clearly-established exception to the requirement of a search warrant.
Click to expand...

If they see the person enter a house, yes.

Just because they think he might be there? No.
 
This thread has thought me that I need to brush up on my Laws pertaining to police stops, seizures and warrants. Anyone have a good link esp. for Massachusetts?
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
If they are in hot pursuit a fleeing felon (as they say they are), they don't need a warrant. I have no idea if they actually were pursuing a fleeing felon, but if they were this fits into a clearly-established exception to the requirement of a search warrant. I would be skeptical of whether this was hot pursuit, though, since they don't seem to be acting with much urgency, and the officer says someone told them the suspect was there (as opposed to them chasing him into the apartment).
Click to expand...

OK so after much editing:

If the police didn't see him go into the apartment, they weren't chasing him, just someone said he might be there. Could they enter without a warrant or consent?
 
Looks like to me they don't necessarily need to be in hot pursuit.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=105

Exigent Circumstances
“Exigent,” in this context, means urgent, a circumstance that demands immediate attention. Law enforcement agents can enter when there’s a fire or other danger, to deal with it or to rescue people, and they can investigate the cause of a fire for a limited time. In addition, officers can enter in hot pursuit of a serious criminal, or to capture one who’s about to escape. Judges usually find that if the police had less than half an hour in which to act, then proceeding without a warrant is reasonable
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top