• 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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rudeguy said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not sure, honestly. This has never arisen in a case I worked on, and I have no idea how New York interprets the common law fleeing felon rule.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
Not sure, honestly. This has never arisen in a case I worked on, and I have no idea how New York interprets the common law fleeing felon rule.
Click to expand...

Yea I think that might be the main thing we are all arguing here. I'm in Michigan where the police would not do that. We take that kind of thing too seriously.

Maybe the question should be: should it really be a state issue if the Constitution is what grants us the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Looks like to me they don't necessarily need to be in hot pursuit.

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

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.
 
rudeguy said:
Yea I think that might be the main thing we are all arguing here. I'm in Michigan where the police would not do that. We take that kind of thing too seriously.

Maybe the question should be: should it really be a state issue if the Constitution is what grants us the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
Click to expand...

Technically it's not a state issue in the end, as the 4th amendment overrides all state laws, but departmental policies would have to be individually challenged/assessed and that only happens when people sue or something goes bad.
 
eskimospy said:
Technically it's not a state issue in the end, as the 4th amendment overrides all state laws, but departmental policies would have to be individually challenged/assessed and that only happens when people sue or something goes bad.
Click to expand...

See that makes sense. One of the big issues I had when I got my concealed carry license was there was almost no case law for most circumstances. I tried to read up on everything I could but there was next to nothing.

I guess I didn't think too much about this being New York. The cops there do stuff that would get them fired here. But that's why I stay away from New York. And Cali.
 
rudeguy said:
See that makes sense. One of the big issues I had when I got my concealed carry license was there was almost no case law for most circumstances. I tried to read up on everything I could but there was next to nothing.

I guess I didn't think too much about this being New York. The cops there do stuff that would get them fired here. But that's why I stay away from New York. And Cali.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure if there's a lot of evidence for fundamentally different behavior between comparable police forces in NY or MI.

That being said, if New York and Cali aren't for you that's your business. This place is crowded enough as it is, haha.
 
Looks like to me Michigan follows the same exact standards in the link I previously posted.

http://www.aggressivecriminaldefense.com/searches

The last major exception to the search warrant requirement is the Exigent Circumstances exception. There are a few parts to this exception. First, if an officer is pursuing a fleeing felon, and the felon enters a home or vehicle, the officer may also enter the home or vehicle without a warrant. Second, if the officer needs to administer emergency aid, he or she may enter the home or vehicle without a warrant. Third, if the officer reasonably believes there is destruction of evidence occurring in the home or vehicle, he or she may enter the home or vehicle. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Looks like to me Michigan follows the same exact standards in the link I previously posted.

http://www.aggressivecriminaldefense.com/searches
Click to expand...

I believe all states would follow the same standards as they are exceptions to the 4th amendment carved out by the Supreme Court.

I think the question in this situation was whether there were actually exigent circumstances. And seeing that the cops didn't really seem in a rush as in they were actively in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, I say no. Also why couldn't they have just posted cops outside her door and had watchers checking the windows while they got a warrant? Seems like they just wanted to gain access to the apartment and knew what to say.
 
I'm sorry to disappoint all of you, but you're wrong about this. They don't need a warrant at all, never have. The hazy legal definitions that currently govern probable cause and warrants make it so incredibly easy to get either that cops can always assume that when they break the law and go beyond probable cause they will be backed up in court by a fussilade of officers and state attourneys, and they may just ignore the laws when they see fit. So nothing to sere here, move along.
 
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.
 
Subyman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol. So you wouldn't be upset if a cop shows up at your door and accuses you of harboring a felon, then forces his way in to search your place? You are part of the reason police get away with this bs, because you think it'll never happen to you.

I believe this has more to do with what they are wearing on their heads.
 
emperus said:
Lol. So you wouldn't be upset if a cop shows up at your door and accuses you of harboring a felon, then forces his way in to search your place? You are part of the reason police get away with this bs, because you think it'll never happen to you.

I believe this has more to do with what they are wearing on their heads.
Click to expand...

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.
 
home searches are incredibly complicated. You essentially need a warrant for any home search when you do not have consent.

The fleeing felon thing is sort of like an emergency situation. If you have to sit there and be like, "Hi, oh yeah, we are like just looking for this felon. Yeah, I can show you a picture" You are sort of running out of the emergency. Those are for situations where you KNOW the guy went in there and he's violent, like he just killed someone, and you are going to bust that door in no questions asked.

" is important to note that the second and third rule above are intended to protect the safety of the officer; therefore, any searches based on these rules should be limited to areas where a person could hide.
Lastly, we will review warrantless home entry based upon exigent circumstances. In Minnesota v. Olson, the United States Supreme Court held that warrantless entry into private premises may be allowed when officers have probable cause to believe one or more of the following circumstances are present:

In hot pursuit of a fleeing felon;
To prevent the imminent destruction of evidence;
To prevent a suspect's escape; or
"
 
emperus said:
I believe this has more to do with what they are wearing on their heads.
Click to expand...
So true. The widespread adoption of portable devices allowing the police to see through doors no doubt led to all of this. They probably entered the building scanned the doors and apartments and saw the Muslim women, then decided they wanted to hear a slew of expletives and knocked on the door.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
 
mizzou said:
home searches are incredibly complicated. You essentially need a warrant for any home search when you do not have consent.

The fleeing felon thing is sort of like an emergency situation. If you have to sit there and be like, "Hi, oh yeah, we are like just looking for this felon. Yeah, I can show you a picture" You are sort of running out of the emergency. Those are for situations where you KNOW the guy went in there and he's violent, like he just killed someone, and you are going to bust that door in no questions asked.

" is important to note that the second and third rule above are intended to protect the safety of the officer; therefore, any searches based on these rules should be limited to areas where a person could hide.
Lastly, we will review warrantless home entry based upon exigent circumstances. In Minnesota v. Olson, the United States Supreme Court held that warrantless entry into private premises may be allowed when officers have probable cause to believe one or more of the following circumstances are present:

In hot pursuit of a fleeing felon;
To prevent the imminent destruction of evidence;
To prevent a suspect's escape; or
"
Click to expand...

No one was in "hot pursuit"

Really man...what happened to you? Did you have a traumatic brain injury? You never used to be like this.
 
boomerang said:
So true. The widespread adoption of portable devices allowing the police to see through doors no doubt led to all of this. They probably entered the building scanned the doors and apartments and saw the Muslim women, then decided they wanted to hear a slew of expletives and knocked on the door.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Click to expand...

An easier explanation is that they had a complaint about Muslim "activity" in the building or had been investigating them.

But again, a mind is a terrible thing to waste innit?
 
rudeguy said:
No one was in "hot pursuit"

Really man...what happened to you? Did you have a traumatic brain injury? You never used to be like this.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, but my post should clearly show that the cop lost "hot pursuit"
 
Not saying he's telling the truth about someone telling them that their suspect was in there, but if they were in pursuit and someone told them "he went in there!" then they can enter without a warrant on grounds of reasonable suspicion. Since they didn't find the suspect, they can now assume that the person who told them that (assuming that part is true) is assisting their suspect in evading the police and they can search his place on reasonable suspicion grounds. By lying to the police, that person is liable for the intrusion on the innocent people. They would be able to sue that person.
 
emperus said:
An easier explanation is that they had a complaint about Muslim "activity" in the building or had been investigating them.

But again, a mind is a terrible thing to waste innit?
Click to expand...
Ah, yet another chapter in the lead paint chip chronicles. I find your theories amazingly insightful. Please, share some more.
 
Raizinman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Convenient for them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top