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

[fskimospy]

Convenient for them!

Also kind of necessary. I mean if a cop is standing outside a house and hears a bang followed by a scream it seems like we probably want him to check it out even though he's not positive a crime is happening.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also kind of necessary. I mean if a cop is standing outside a house and hears a bang followed by a scream it seems like we probably want him to check it out even though he's not positive a crime is happening.

Sure. How often does that happen compared to a cop just lying about probably cause?

 

[rudeguy]

Also kind of necessary. I mean if a cop is standing outside a house and hears a bang followed by a scream it seems like we probably want him to check it out even though he's not positive a crime is happening.

yea that's the definition of exigent. That's totally understandable.

This is long but worth the watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aGD32DENkk

Cops get called to "shots fired" call. Guy is on his own property target shooting. Nothing illegal there, no one claimed there was a victim. The cops decide they need to search his house to make sure there isn't a victim, even though no on said there was a victim. Guy tells cops no to search, they search anyway. Cops don't find any sign of a crime but do see a gun safe. Cops decide they need to search the gun safe. Owner tells the cops no, cops force to owner to give up the keys. Cops search the safe and find no signs of a crime but do see some guns they really want for themselves. Cops take the guns.

After all of that goes down, then the cops start plotting "exigent" circumstances.

 

[JSt0rm]

Also I got $1000 on if they think there is a active shooter they wont go in and just call backup.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Rudeguy has just been conditioned to disagree with me routinely

Him and me both, mizzou. Him and me both.

I think that was his bot response lol

Heh...that actually sounds plausible. It's too early for him to be drinking.

 

[Raizinman]

Him and me both, mizzou. Him and me both.



Heh...that actually sounds plausible. It's too early for him to be drinking.

RudeGuy is actually a phone app called Dick101

 

[rudeguy]

RudeGuy is actually a phone app called Dick101

Its "Gettin Dick101"

Dumbass

 

[JSt0rm]

Its "Gettin Dick101"

Dumbass

Oh yeah? Rudeguy is "gettin dick" hmmmm.

 

[Venix]

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.

Probable cause is not sufficient to enter a home without a warrant. Police can only enter a home without a warrant in limited exigent circumstances, and even when an exigency exists, the scope of the search is strictly limited.

Vehicles can be searched with probable cause alone in most states because of the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment. No such exception exists for homes.

 

[rudeguy]

Probable cause is not sufficient to enter a home without a warrant. Police can only enter a home without a warrant in limited exigent circumstances, and even when an exigency exists, the scope of the search is strictly limited.

Vehicles can be searched with probable cause alone in most states because of the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment. No such exception exists for homes.

HEY!

He read wikipedia. He knows more than you.

 

[emperus]

Hold on there. Back up. Look at my post. I note we can't see the beginning of the interaction. So I don't know why the lady was so upset at looking at a picture other than what she is yelling at the police officer who seems calm. Try to be reasonable before jumping on top of someone. I'm trying to understand this the same as anyone else.

Honestly, it was the wording of your post.

I watched the video. I'm wondering how it started because the lady was going pretty crazy on the police officer who seemed to just want to show her a picture. I skipped forward a bit and I see they end up entering her residence. Curious to see what the defense is for the cops. Why would an innocent person get so angry about them asking for help catching a felon in the first place. She wouldn't even look at the image, but ends up cussing them out. She makes herself seem awfully suspicious, but they'd still need to get a warrant.

The words you chose seem like you've already assumed the Cops were in the right.

 

[Perknose]

HEY!

He read wikipedia. He knows more than you.

Maybe you should read Wiki, too . . . or at least take in what multiple posters have patiently tried to explain to you:

An exigent circumstance, in the criminal procedure law of the United States, allows law enforcement, under certain circumstances, to enter a structure without a search warrant or, if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's imminent escape. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.

Now, NONE of us know, including you, whether the cops in that video had enough reasonable cause to believe their suspect had gone into that apartment.

 

[rudeguy]

Maybe you should read Wiki, too . . . or at least take in what multiple posters have patiently tried to explain to you:



Now, NONE of us know, including you, whether the cops in that video had enough reasonable cause to believe their suspect had gone into that apartment.

None of what you just wikishitted applies here. No one was in danger and there was no danger of a suspect escaping. They were in an apartment building which is easy to surround and wait for a warrant.

 

[Perknose]

No one was in danger and there was no danger of a suspect escaping. They were in an apartment building which is easy to surround and wait for a warrant.

Because no fire escapes, right.

IF they had legitimate reason to believe their suspect was in that apartment, THEN they had absolute legal leeway to enter that apartment, end of story.

However, based on the video, neither you nor I knows for sure whether those cops had enough reason to believe that.

It's that simple, something you seem too dense to understand.

 

[rudeguy]

Because no fire escapes, right.

IF they had legitimate reason to believe their suspect was in that apartment, THEN they had absolute legal leeway to enter that apartment, end of story.

However, based on the video, neither you nor I knows for sure whether those cops had enough reason to believe that.

It's that simple, something you seem too dense to understand.

Did you see how many cops were there? It only takes one to watch a fire escape.

If the cops had saw the suspect go into the apartment, that's a whole different story. But they didn't. They got a tip that he MIGHT be there.

I know in your twisted little mind, our rights mean nothing. But in the real world, our rights matter.

 

[BoberFett]

Also kind of necessary. I mean if a cop is standing outside a house and hears a bang followed by a scream it seems like we probably want him to check it out even though he's not positive a crime is happening.

Those are called exigent circumstances.

Should cops have the right to enter any dwelling they want as long as they have a permanent "informant" traveling with them?

"Yeah, that's the house I bought drugs at."

 

[TheSlamma]

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?

Hillary was another example of government employees recently who are not obeying any of the laws and regulations put on them just like these cops are not. Her not obeying her regulations was not a cause and effect but a parallel. It's actually insanely simple to understand that so I really can't understand why you are struggling with that.

 

[Perknose]

I know in your twisted little mind, our rights mean nothing.

My twisted little mind? Projection much? If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a parody poster. That you're actually not is pretty damn pathetic.

 

[rudeguy]

My twisted little mind? Projection much? If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a parody poster. That you're actually not is pretty damn pathetic.

There we go. Lead with a personal attack, then get shown to be wrong and add another person attack.

Now please quick thread crapping and trying to derail my thread. If you have evidence that the police did have exigent circumstances, please post them.

 

[Perknose]

There we go. Lead with a personal attack, then get shown to be wrong and add another person attack.

Now please quick thread crapping and trying to derail my thread. If you have evidence that the police did have exigent circumstances, please post them.

Wrong about what? Please quote what wrong statement I made about this case, and then where it was shown to be wrong.

 

[Perknose]

Wrong about what? Please quote what wrong statement I made about this case, and then where it was shown to be wrong.

 

[rudeguy]

Please quit thread crapping.

If you can show there were exigent circumstances, great. Otherwise you are just trolling.

 

[Cozarkian]

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.

Um, you need Probable Cause to GET a warrant so that you can search. Don't believe me? Read 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

There are instances when police can enter or search without a warrant, but probable cause is not one of them. The most well-known exceptions are probably hot-pursuit and exigent circumstances.

 

[Perknose]

There we go. Lead with a personal attack, then get shown to be wrong and add another person attack.

Wrong about what? Please quote what wrong statement I made about this case, and then where it was shown to be wrong.

You make a direct charge that I was shown to be wrong in this thread, and when I ask you to back it up, this is your weaselly duhversion of a reply?

Please quit thread crapping.

If you can show there were exigent circumstances, great. Otherwise you are just trolling.

Man up, Rudy. Just . . . man up.

BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATION BY QUOTING WHERE I WAS WRONG OR SIMPLY ADMIT YOUR ERROR.

 

[rudeguy]

Maybe you should read Wiki, too . . . or at least take in what multiple posters have patiently tried to explain to you:



Now, NONE of us know, including you, whether the cops in that video had enough reasonable cause to believe their suspect had gone into that apartment.

They were not in pursuit, they did not see him enter the apartment, they had no right to enter without a warrant.

If you can disprove this, great. If not, go find a different thread to be an ass in.