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

[Vdubchaos]

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.

They DON'T pay the price and usually don't lose a job either.

Nothing you can do about it.

Also, any authority can strip you of your rights by labeling you a terrorist.

Rights = imaginary make believe things. You haven't figured that out yet?

 

[CZroe]

Geez, Jowo, you're trying to split hairs on meanings of words.

Pursuit can mean all sorts of attempting to capture......actively searching, running after, looking around. All sorts of attempts to find and capture someone. Of course, this doesn't include the pursuit of happiness......something that doesn't also mean hot pursuit of happiness.

HOT pursuit specifically implies the cops SAW the suspect, had the suspect in view while trying to apprehend, the suspect within at least earshot of the cops. It'd require the cops to SEE the suspect go inside an apartment, store, etc., to enter that place without warrant.

I HIGHLY doubt any related legal statute has the word "hot" before "pursuit," so why are you splitting that hair?

In hot pursuit, the cops certainly wouldn't take time to ask "Have you seen this man?" or "Let me show you his picture." That's not hot pursuit......those cops were fishing. When they were asked how they came to the conclusion of the suspect being at that particular address, no answer was given. Strange, isn't it?

They answered that a man outside told them. What's strange is that you glossed right over it as many times as it had been pointed out in the video and the thread.

Nothing about "We saw him enter this hallway and your door slam shut.", something which would indeed make it hot pursuit.

They were searching, pure and simple. Same as serving an arrest warrant at a house, the cops need a search warrant to just "come inside and look around." If they'd have had either, an arrest warrant with that apt's address listed or a search warrant with the same info, they'd have been golden.

Or, if they'd have said they saw him enter the apt., no warrant would have been necessary.

But, since they never saw him enter the apt., proven by them not finding him anywhere in it, it was an illegal search, pure and simple.

The man could have been in that unit and gone out a window or fire escape for all you know. The guy who told them could have been harboring the man in another apartment and lied to misdirect. Hell, he might not have even existed. Nothing was "proven" by them not finding him there after being delayed at the door. Their delay very well may have been what the man needed to escape, which is exactly why they wouldn't need a warrant in such a situation.

 

[BoberFett]

CZroe

If there's no standard for what constitutes "pursuit" then the 4th amendment for all intents and purposes is meaningless.

If the cops are after somebody and want to go door to door searching through everyone's house, what's to stop them? By your definition, they're in pursuit just because they're looking for somebody.

 

[waggy]

CZroe

If there's no standard for what constitutes "pursuit" then the 4th amendment for all intents and purposes is meaningless.

If the cops are after somebody and want to go door to door searching through everyone's house, what's to stop them? By your definition, they're in pursuit just because they're looking for somebody.

4th is gone.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/64461/


during the boston bombing the went door to door. ordered people out by gunpoint and searched each house. it was declared legal.

They just have to declare a "shelter in place" or such shit and it's free game.

 

[emperus]

I HIGHLY doubt any related legal statute has the word "hot" before "pursuit," so why are you splitting that hair?

U.S. Supreme Court
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)

(b) Petitioner's warrantless arrest in the privacy of his own bedroom for a noncriminal traffic offense cannot be justified on the basis of the "hot pursuit" doctrine, because there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of the petitioner from the scene of a crime, or on the basis of a threat to public safety, because petitioner had already arrived home and had abandoned his car at the scene of the accident.

Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)

 

[BoberFett]

4th is gone.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/64461/


during the boston bombing the went door to door. ordered people out by gunpoint and searched each house. it was declared legal.

They just have to declare a "shelter in place" or such shit and it's free game.

And I say that whole thing was bullshit too.

 

[Venix]

I HIGHLY doubt any related legal statute has the word "hot" before "pursuit," so why are you splitting that hair?

I see that you didn't bother to educate yourself with the Fourth Amendment exceptions information I provided earlier. It explains the "hot pursuit" exception and links to the Supreme Court case that defined it.

You seem to be under the impression that you can just ignore the legal definitions of terms like "reasonable suspicion" and "hot pursuit" and substitute your own. Luckily, that's not how the judicial system works.