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

[waggy]

fuck those cops. They should be stripped of the badge.

The had no right or proof to enter the home.

 

[Perknose]

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.

Even if both of your allegations above are true, which someone can somewhat infer from the video, but neither of which are conclusively proved by it, if the cops believed the suspect could escape, that counts under NY law as an exigent circumstance.

Many, if not most of these older NYC apartment houses are 5 and 6 story walk-ups, lacking an elevator. In the time it would take some of the police to get down and out, the suspect could have easily gotten away by the fire escape.

My point, that neither you nor I know conclusively whether they had legal cause to enter, stands.

And your allegation, that I was "shown to be wrong" in the thread, fails.

 

[emperus]

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.

It pains me so, but I'm going to have to agree with RudeGuy here. From my limited reason in case law today(yeah lol), it doesn't sound like this rises to the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th amendment.

Hot pursuit is one such exigent circumstance. It usually applies when the police are pursuing a suspected felon into private premises or have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed on private premises. The Supreme Court stated that "'hot pursuit' means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry 'in and about the public streets'" (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]). Hot pursuit also applies when the lives of police officers or others are in danger. Thus, the Court has recognized two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit: the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.
The Supreme Court enunciated the rule of hot pursuit in 1967, in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782. It had used the term before, but in Warden, it explicitly condoned a certain form of this warrantless search. In this case, police officers pursuing a suspected armed robber were told that he had entered a dwelling moments before their arrival. They entered the dwelling, searched it and seized evidence, and then apprehended the suspect in bed. The man alleged in court that the warrantless search of the premises had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it disagreed, justifying the search under exigent circumstances.
Since Warden, lower courts have applied the rule to determine whether police officers acted reasonably or unreasonably when conducting a search without obtaining a search warrant. Other cases have permitted warrantless entry and arrest in hot pursuit under different circumstances: when the police saw a suspect standing in her doorway who retreated inside carrying a package that contained marked money from a drug sting (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]); when the police had probable cause to arrest a suspect because he fit the description of an assailant who had threatened others and fled arrest (United States v. Lopez, 989 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 872, 114 S. Ct. 201, 126 L. Ed. 2d 158 [1993]); and when a police officer at the threshold of an apartment viewed a narcotics deal taking place inside (United States v. Sewell, 942 F.2d 1209 [7th Cir. 1991]).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hot+Pursuit

There were about 6 cops there and they could have called in more. They could have had a spotter or two at every entrance and then got a warrant.

 

[waggy]

Even if both of your allegations above are true, which someone can somewhat infer from the video, but neither of which are conclusively proved by it, if the cops believed the suspect could escape, that counts under NY law as an exigent circumstance.

Many, if not most of these older NYC apartment houses are 5 and 6 story walk-ups, lacking an elevator. In the time it would take some of the police to get down and out, the suspect could have easily gotten away by the fire escape.

My point, that neither you nor I know conclusively whether they had legal cause to enter, stands.

And your allegation, that I was "shown to be wrong" in the thread, fails.

that makes no sense.

they can enter the house without a warrant if they have evidence that he is INSIDE at that instant.

Since they had to run up and you even say he had time to escape then they can't be sure he is in. so we are back to them needing a warrant.

they can't just enter a house because he might be in sometime during the day.

 

[waggy]

It pains me so, but I'm going to have to agree with RudeGuy here. From my limited reason in case law today(yeah lol), it doesn't sound like this rises to the exigent circumstances exception to the 4th amendment.



There were about 6 cops there and they could have called in more. They could have had a spotter or two at every entrance and then got a warrant.

Well fuck. hell has frozen over! Emperus with a good argument! :thumbsup:

 

[DCal430]

In California they can search you or your vehicle with no warrant at all, if you are caught J-walking and don't have ID, they can arrest you and do a full search. This went to supreme court of California which upheld it as totally fine, that your lack of ID is enough cause to search.

The courts give the police a huge of amount of leeway in doing warrentless searches.

 

[rudeguy]

Even if both of your allegations above are true, which someone can somewhat infer from the video, but neither of which are conclusively proved by it, if the cops believed the suspect could escape, that counts under NY law as an exigent circumstance.

Many, if not most of these older NYC apartment houses are 5 and 6 story walk-ups, lacking an elevator. In the time it would take some of the police to get down and out, the suspect could have easily gotten away by the fire escape.

My point, that neither you nor I know conclusively whether they had legal cause to enter, stands.

And your allegation, that I was "shown to be wrong" in the thread, fails.

They had no legal right. If you can prove otherwise, please do. As it stands you are just making an ass of yourself like some kumbaya burn out.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If the police felt there was a felony suspect in the house/apartment or someone destroying evidence they can perform a warrant-less search period, it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The United States Supreme Court recently clarified this third part of the exigent circumstances exception to the search warrant requirement in the case of Kentucky v. King. In that case, police stood outside an apartment and smelled marijuana. They announced their presence and then heard what they believed to be the destruction of drugs occurring inside. The Supreme Court held that this was a permissible warrantless search, so long as the officers behaved reasonably.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

Spot on, the police can in the correct circumstances and in this case no one in this forum knows what the actual circumstance were. If the people feel they were wrongly treated they should follow the proper channels to challenge such.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If the people feel they were wrongly treated they should follow the proper channels to challenge such.

Yes, they should file a complaint with the police. Who broke in to her house. I'm sure they will honestly and fairly investigate themselves and press charges against themselves and plead guilty if they determine themselves to be breaking the law.

If this fails, maybe they can civilly sue those officers who have sovereign immunity. And if the immunity is waived, then the lawsuit can proceed and us tax payers will gladly foot the legal defense bill and happily pay out any damages. That will sure put those lawbreaking cops in their place. I'm sure they will feel very very bad and will change their ways.

 

[Triumph]

If they see the person enter a house, yes.

Just because they think he might be there? No.

The Boston bombing showed us that the Police are perfectly able to, and the people perfectly willing to let them, search any home anywhere within dozens of square miles with little to no direct justification.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually if they have probable cause to believe that person is there they do.

The Police have no right to show up and enter and search your home without a warrant!! End of story!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Spot on, the police can in the correct circumstances and in this case no one in this forum knows what the actual circumstance were. If the people feel they were wrongly treated they should follow the proper channels to challenge such.

No the Police cannot just arbitrarily enter your home with no warrant and claim they were searching for somebody!! I am glad our local Police apologist entered the thread!! Now go home...hahahaa

 

[shortylickens]

They had no legal right. If you can prove otherwise, please do. As it stands you are just making an ass of yourself like some kumbaya burn out.

See you in a week, buddy!


:awe:

 

[MtnMan]

What do your expect, it's NY, the constitution hasn't been valid there for decades.

Can't even own a magazine for a gun that holds more than 10 rounds, but never mind that many many modern handguns (Glocks, Sigs, Springfield XD's, S&W, Ruger, etc., etc.) are sold with 12 - 19 or more magazine capacity throughout the rest of the country.

Then tried to make it illegal to put more than 7 rounds in a mag, same mindset as limiting the size of a drink. Fortunately the courts have said NO to these and other mindless liberal rules.

 

[SheHateMe]

Tired of these renegade cops. I'm just waiting for the day when they try to pull some shit on somebody who fires back.

 

[MtnMan]

Tired of these renegade cops. I'm just waiting for the day when they try to pull some shit on somebody who fires back.

If there isn't video proof then it will be ruled a justified shooting when the cops kill the residents.

 

[uclaLabrat]

The below should be read by only people who are not a retard.

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.

This is the second post you've made this error, the first was even edited. Can you please stop saying this when others in this thread have already mentioned probable cause, not probably cause?

 

[waggy]

No the Police cannot just arbitrarily enter your home with no warrant and claim they were searching for somebody!! I am glad our local Police apologist entered the thread!! Now go home...hahahaa

they did with the boston bomber and got away with it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No the Police cannot just arbitrarily enter your home with no warrant and claim they were searching for somebody!! I am glad our local Police apologist entered the thread!! Now go home...hahahaa

Too bad you're ignorant of the law which has been upheld in several cases by the SCOTUS.

 

[Meghan54]

If the police felt there was a felony suspect in the house/apartment or someone destroying evidence they can perform a warrant-less search period, it has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

The United States Supreme Court recently clarified this third part of the exigent circumstances exception to the search warrant requirement in the case of Kentucky v. King. In that case, police stood outside an apartment and smelled marijuana. They announced their presence and then heard what they believed to be the destruction of drugs occurring inside. The Supreme Court held that this was a permissible warrantless search, so long as the officers behaved reasonably.

I know you think this case you referenced illustrates why the cops can enter the home without a warrant, but I do disagree.

The cops were LOOKING for someone without the knowledge of the person actually being there, correct? So how does that equate to "imminent escape"? To have an imminent escape potential, wouldn't that mean the person in question is KNOWN to be in a specific location and that police inaction would allow the person to vanish?

This search wasn't because the person (suspect) was known to be there, instead the cops were hoping to find him/her there. Completely different set of circumstances.

Additionally, the rest of what you quoted again centers on something the cops WITNESS, in that case smelling pot. It'd be the same as hearing a gun shot or scream/cry for help, or dishes begin crashing into walls indicating a possible altercation, etc., etc.

I don't see looking for someone that MAY be in a location to be anything like what you're trying to attribute to it......imminent escape being the primary attribute.

Even down here in the South, the cops HAVE to have a warrant to enter a home when the cops are simply looking for someone. They cannot enter a home without one, unless the cops witnessed the suspect enter the home and KNOW he/she's inside. THEN you have imminent escape concerns. Without that knowledge, a warrant is needed.

Cops cannot enter homes on a feeling....your choice of words. "If the police felt there was..." is no justification for no warrant. Guessing is no substitute for knowledge, which the cops in the OP did NOT have.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Guess you need to take up that argument with SCOTUS as they did uphold the police entering when they felt evidence was being destroyed.

This is another issue I will never have to deal with in my lifetime as I don't partake in illegal activities nor harbor any felons or fugitives of the law.

 

[Catriona]

Guess you need to take up that argument with SCOTUS as they did uphold the police entering when they felt evidence was being destroyed.

This is another issue I will never have to deal with in my lifetime as I don't partake in illegal activities nor harbor any felons or fugitives of the law.

The woman in the video wasn't partaking in an illegal activity or harboring a felon or fugitive, but she had to deal with it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The woman in the video wasn't partaking in an illegal activity or harboring a felon or fugitive, but she had to deal with it.

She has legal recourse available to her though I won't be surprised if a judge reviews the circumstances and says the police had enough probable cause to enact a warrant-less search.

 

[emperus]

Guess you need to take up that argument with SCOTUS as they did uphold the police entering when they felt evidence was being destroyed.

This is another issue I will never have to deal with in my lifetime as I don't partake in illegal activities nor harbor any felons or fugitives of the law.

What does that have to do with this case? There are very explicit exceptions to the 4th amendment the Supreme Court has carved out. The various Supreme Court cases describe and limit or broaden the exigency exceptions. I don't think this rises to that exception. From what I gather (I'm not a lawyer) time is a huge part of the exigency exception. If the police wait to get a warrant, either suspect or evidence could be lost like in a "hot pursuit" of a suspect who the cop "knows" is in an apartment, or someone going to swallow marijuana or flush it down the toilet that the cop knows the person has in their possession.