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

[Catriona]

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.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it could happen to you just like it happened to her.

 

[emperus]

Double Post

 

[emperus]

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.

The initial court may, but I would like to see what happens when the case is appealed. The cops are going to have to explain, who the suspect were they were chasing, when the first started chasing him/her, who told them the suspect was there and why they felt they didn't have time to get a warrant.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

That wasn't my point. My point was that it could happen to you just like it happened to her.

How much you want to bet that the occupants in the apartment knows the person the police were looking for in this case? Or that that person had recently been in that apartment?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The initial court may, but I would like to see what happens when the case is appealed. The cops are going to have to explain, who the suspect were they were chasing, when the first started chasing him/her, who told them the suspect was there and why they felt they didn't have time to get a warrant.

Read and understand the law, there are certain instances the police can and do perform warrant-less searches in full compliance with the law.

 

[Catriona]

How much you want to bet that the occupants in the apartment knows the person the police were looking for in this case? Or that that person had recently been in that apartment?

What reason do you have to think that?

 

[rudeguy]

Read and understand the law, there are certain instances the police can and do perform warrant-less searches in full compliance with the law.

And this was not one of them.

If you can provide proof there were exigent circumstances, please do.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Perknose nailed it with his post.

We know is the police can per warrant-less searches in certain circumstances and be in accordance with the law/US Constitution.

We do not know the full circumstances in this case other than a video that may or may not include all the pertinent information required to make this decision.

But feel free to go off on your usual "I know everything" tangent and if you can prove there was no exigent circumstances, please do.

 

[rudeguy]

Perknose nailed it with his post.

We know is the police can per warrant-less searches in certain circumstances and be in accordance with the law/US Constitution.

We do not know the full circumstances in this case other than a video that may or may not include all the pertinent information required to make this decision.

But feel free to go off on your usual "I know everything" tangent and if you can prove there was no exigent circumstances, please do.

The video proves it.

But you've already made up facts in your mind that don't exist. So you and Perk both have that going for you.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The video proves it.

But you've already made up facts in your mind that don't exist. So you and Perk both have that going for you.

No, the video does not disprove the police had the probable cause to execute a warrant-less search.

 

[mrjminer]

I thought police could only bust in like that if they were in hot pursuit or something of that nature. Personally, it didn't look to me like they were; they didn't seem to be in a super hurry, or they would have just busted in. Granted I don't know all the applicable laws, just the general demeanor of the police seemed to also indicate that they shouldn't have been busting in; when the lady said to make sure they get all of their faces on camera like a couple of the cops in the back look like they are starting to leave.

 

[rudeguy]

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.

And by your logic, a cop can shoot anyone they want. The courts have upheld police shootings as legal. If they feel they were wrongly shot, they or their survivors should follow proper channels.

 

[rudeguy]

I have this pesky problem, it's called being employed. I have to do things to earn a living and support my family, so I can't always immediately respond.

You understand that right? You do work, don't you?

 

[emperus]

Read and understand the law, there are certain instances the police can and do perform warrant-less searches in full compliance with the law.

I have. Maybe you should try it instead of throwing out generalities. The whole question in this thread is whether this is one of the cases. And the only exception the police could have relied on was the fleeing suspect exception. So the argument you are making is that you believe that what you saw in the video leads you to believe that the cops were in actual hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect?

 

[emperus]

I thought police could only bust in like that if they were in hot pursuit or something of that nature. Personally, it didn't look to me like they were; they didn't seem to be in a super hurry, or they would have just busted in. Granted I don't know all the applicable laws, just the general demeanor of the police seemed to also indicate that they shouldn't have been busting in; when the lady said to make sure they get all of their faces on camera like a couple of the cops in the back look like they are starting to leave.

Exactly. They didn't look like they were in hot pursuit of anyone.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

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.

Oh yeah! we all have a "legal recourse", provided we have an abundance of time, and cash "available". Meanwhile evidence, and property are *lost*.
And, should you get a favorable verdict, it will still be on your permanent record. Across the nation we have seen rights being trampled. Face it people, the cops, IRS, and government can do whatever they want. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and exigent circumstances are invented on the fly.
Even if you know your *rights*, you will surrender them when a cop threatens to shoot you. Ask me how I know, (rhetorical), been there, done that.

 

[CZroe]

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

Read your own words. It's not "arbitrary" if they really were told that the fleeing suspect was inside.

It all goes back to reasonable suspicion. Did the police have reasonable suspicion or not? Did they lie about the informant or not? I don't know and neither do you, so you mean to say *If*, not "No."

 

[rudeguy]

Read your own words. It's not "arbitrary" if they really were told that the fleeing suspect was inside.

It all goes back to reasonable cause. Did the police have reasonable cause or not? Did they lie about the informant or not? I don't know and neither do you, so you mean to say *If*, not "No."

Please show where they were told that.

 

[Venix]

Read your own words. It's not "arbitrary" if they really were told that the fleeing suspect was inside.

It all goes back to reasonable cause. Did the police have reasonable cause or not? Did they lie about the informant or not? I don't know and neither do you, so you mean to say *If*, not "No."

Do you mean reasonable suspicion? Probable cause? They are two very different standards, although it really doesn't matter in this case because neither is sufficient for entering a home without a warrant.

 

[CZroe]

Please show where they were told that.

I specifically said that we don't know if it is the truth or not, but it is what they said. They say this in the video. Do I need to link the video again? The police very well could be lying, but he said "no" and called it "arbitrary" with absolutely no justification.

Do you mean reasonable suspicion? Probable cause? They are two very different standards, although it really doesn't matter in this case because neither is sufficient for entering a home without a warrant.

Reasonable suspicion. Yes, it does. The constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm not saying that they had it or not. They claim to. We have no way to know if they are lying.

 

[rudeguy]

I specifically said that we don't know if it is the truth or not, but it is what they said. They say this in the video. Do I need to link the video again? The police very well could be lying, but he said "no" and called it "arbitrary" with absolutely no justification.


Reasonable suspicion. Yes, it does. The constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm not saying that they had it or not. They claim to. We have no way to know if they are lying.

Where did they claim that?

You are making stuff up as you go.

 

[CZroe]

Where did they claim that?

You are making stuff up as you go.

They made the claim in the video repeatedly.
"We were told that he was in here."

 

[MongGrel]

They made the claim in the video repeatedly.
"We were told that he was in here."

I'm going to have to go with CZ on this one.

 

[rudeguy]

They made the claim in the video repeatedly.
"We were told that he was in here."

They never claimed to be in pursuit. They claimed they were told someone was in there.

Two very different things.


Again...if you can post some proof of exigent circumstances please do it. Other than that, you are just making shit up.

 

[Venix]

Reasonable suspicion. Yes, it does. The constitution protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.

I'm not saying that they had it or not. They claim to. We have no way to know if they are lying.

No, that's completely incorrect. Reasonable suspicion is the extremely low standard of proof that allows police to perform traffic stops and other temporary seizures. Aside from weapons pat-downs, reasonable suspicion is never enough to perform a search in any circumstance.

Probable cause is the higher standard of proof that allows the police to make arrests, acquire search warrants, and conduct warrantless searches in a narrow set of circumstances (e.g. motor vehicle searches). None of those Fourth Amendment exceptions allows that police to enter a home without a warrant.

Warrantless entry of a home requires exigent circumstances. That means the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or they see someone being murdered, or see evidence being destroyed. Simply hearing from someone that a wanted criminal might be somewhere is not an exigency. The police must obtain a warrant before entering.