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

[BoberFett]

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

Great. Get a warrant.

 

[emperus]

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

Besides that line, was there any other part of the conversation or any of their manuerisms that led you to believe they were in "hot pursuit" of a suspect?

 

[CZroe]

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.

I never said that they claimed to be in pursuit. They may have, they may not. This person who "told" them this may not even exist. I don't know. You don't know. Neither of us knows. Got it? Now: Because we don't know, you can't possibly say that they needed a warrant.

I said that it very well could have been a complete fabrication, but you can only say that they needed a warrant IF they were lying about the justification. You are asking me for "proof of exigent circumstances" as if I ever claimed such proof existed.

Warrant needed? Yes/No/If
I said "If." Understand? Because none of us have all the information, it is the only correct answer.

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.

Oh. Yeah. Reasonable suspicion only applies to pat-downs. Sure.

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.

You might think that if you had never read it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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's that pesky little word again. You need probable cause for a warrant. Reasonable suspicion would, by definition, make the search "reasonable."

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.

How on Earth do you know they didn't chase him into the complex and down a hall, round the corner behind him, and find only a neighbor or accomplice saying "He went in there!" I don't. You don't. It's impossible to say if a warrant was needed or not. It's easy to get hot and bothered watching the video until you realize this. I don't blame you. I blame the ASSUMPTIONS. It very well may be that the police made it all up and did not have the authority to enter that apartment and did need a warrant, but we cannot conclusively say this because WE DON'T KNOW. Calling it "arbitrary" when the police are on video saying that it isn't is not a valid argument. Pointing that out does not mean I took the side of the police and think that the search was proper. All I am saying is that it is POSSIBLE that it was proper and also possible that it was improper. That's why I used the word "If" instead of "Yes" or "No."

 

[CZroe]

Besides that line, was there any other part of the conversation or any of their manuerisms that led you to believe they were in "hot pursuit" of a suspect?

I never said that they were. I said "IF" what they were saying was "true"... then they MIGHT be allowed to enter without a search warrant IF they were in pursuit.

How is it that so many people think I have taken an absolute side when all I did was point out that someone else taking an absolute failed to consider something?! It's like none of you know what "IF" means.

 

[rudeguy]

I never said that they were. I said "IF" what they were saying was "true"... then they MIGHT be allowed to enter without a search warrant IF they were in pursuit.

How is it that so many people think I have taken an absolute side when all I did was point out that someone else taking an absolute failed to consider something?! It's like none of you know what "IF" means.

watch the video moron

They were not chasing anyone. There were no exigent circumstances. The cops had no right to enter without a warrant.

Writing 180 paragraphs doesn't make you sound knowledgeable. It makes you sound desperate.

 

[Venix]

Oh. Yeah. Reasonable suspicion only applies to pat-downs. Sure.


You might think that if you had never read it:

There's that pesky little word again. You need probable cause for a warrant. Reasonable suspicion would, by definition, make the search "reasonable."

I'm pretty convinced that you're trolling, as this is some of the most embarrassingly ignorant nonsense I've ever read about the Fourth Amendment. On the off-chance that you're not just screwing with me:

Reasonable suspicion
Probable cause
Fourth Amendment exceptions

How on Earth do you know they didn't chase him into the complex and down a hall, round the corner behind him, and find only a neighbor or accomplice saying "He went in there!" I don't. You don't. It's impossible to say if a warrant was needed or not. It's easy to get hot and bothered watching the video until you realize this. I don't blame you. I blame the ASSUMPTIONS. It very well may be that the police made it all up and did not have the authority to enter that apartment and did need a warrant, but we cannot conclusively say this because WE DON'T KNOW. Calling it "arbitrary" when the police are on video saying that it isn't is not a valid argument. Pointing that out does not mean I took the side of the police and think that the search was proper. All I am saying is that it is POSSIBLE that it was proper and also possible that it was improper. That's why I used the word "If" instead of "Yes" or "No."

If they were in hot pursuit of a suspect, they would have immediately pushed the woman aside and entered the home rather than arguing with her for two minutes. They would have expressed extreme surprise at not finding the suspect inside, and would have checked the windows and any other exits. The video clearly shows a fishing expedition, not the pursuit of a dangerous criminal.

 

[rudeguy]

I'm pretty convinced that you're trolling, as this is some of the most embarrassingly ignorant nonsense I've ever read about the Fourth Amendment. On the off-chance that you're not just screwing with me:

Reasonable suspicion
Probable cause
Fourth Amendment exceptions



If they were in hot pursuit of a suspect, they would have immediately pushed the woman aside and entered the home rather than arguing with her for two minutes. They would have expressed extreme surprise at not finding the suspect inside, and would have checked the windows and any other exits. The video clearly shows a fishing expedition, not the pursuit of a dangerous criminal.

The police clearly said they were searching for someone, not chasing them.

CZroe is just going for moron of the thread award.

 

[CZroe]

They were not chasing anyone. There were no exigent circumstances. The cops had no right to enter without a warrant.

The police clearly said they were searching for someone, not chasing them.

Doors: They do exist.

 

[waggy]

Doors: They do exist.

then why are they badgering a old lady and not outside looking?

no matter how you try to spin it. they broke the law. these are bad cops and they should be in the unemployment line.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If they blatantly violated the law/US Constitution, why is it no major new media is running with the story? Or the ALCU/NAACP? Specially with the fact the woman in the video is a political/civil rights activist.

I watched the video again and the police clearly stated they were in pursuit of someone and were told the person had gone into the apartment. Based on this their warrant-less search appears to have been in compliance with NY law/US Constitution.

 

[rudeguy]

If they blatantly violated the law/US Constitution, why is it no major new media is running with the story? Or the ALCU/NAACP? Specially with the fact the woman in the video is a political/civil rights activist.

I watched the video again and the police clearly stated they were in pursuit of someone and were told the person had gone into the apartment. Based on this their warrant-less search appears to have been in compliance with NY law/US Constitution.

when did they state they were in pursuit?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

when did they state they were in pursuit?

At approximately 30 seconds in the youtube video in your OP the police clearly state the following:

"I'm trying to catch a felon who is fleeing from us" and followed by "We were told he was here"

Based on that they met the exigent circumstances requirements.

Exigent Circumstances
“Exigent,” in this context, means urgent, a circumstance that demands immediate attention. Law enforcement agents can enter when there’s a fire or other danger, to deal with it or to rescue people, and they can investigate the cause of a fire for a limited time. In addition, officers can enter in hot pursuit of a serious criminal, or to capture one who’s about to escape. Judges usually find that if the police had less than half an hour in which to act, then proceeding without a warrant is reasonable

Which is why I suspect is the reason this is not being pursued by the MSM or the ALCU.

 

[emperus]

At approximately 30 seconds in the youtube video in your OP the police clearly state the following:

"I'm trying to catch a felon who is fleeing from us" and followed by "We were told he was here"

Based on that they met the exigent circumstances requirements.



Which is why I suspect is the reason this is not being pursued by the MSM or the ALCU.

As I asked a poster above. Please explain what language the cops used and or any of their mannerisms that led you to believe that they needed to enter without a warrant because they were in "hot pursuit of a serious criminal or to capture one who’s about to escape".

The key words are hot and about to escape.

 

[rudeguy]

At approximately 30 seconds in the youtube video in your OP the police clearly state the following:

"I'm trying to catch a felon who is fleeing from us" and followed by "We were told he was here"

Based on that they met the exigent circumstances requirements.



Which is why I suspect is the reason this is not being pursued by the MSM or the ALCU.

So then just to be clear:

Did they ever say they were in pursuit?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So then just to be clear:

Did they ever say they were in pursuit?

Show where the law says they have to say "in pursuit" or "trying to catch a fleeing felon" would suffice. My bet is the answer is yes, it would suffice.

pur·suit
noun: pursuit;
1. the action of following or pursuing someone or something.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

As I asked a poster above. Please explain what language the cops used and or any of their mannerisms that led you to believe that they needed to enter without a warrant because they were in "hot pursuit of a serious criminal or to capture one who’s about to escape".

The key words are hot and about to escape.

Trying to catch a fleeing felon seems to meet that criteria. What if that person had shot someone you cared about around the corner?

 

[rudeguy]

Show where the law says they have to say "in pursuit" or "trying to catch a fleeing felon" would suffice. My bet is the answer is yes, it would suffice.

So then just to be clear:

Did they ever say they were in pursuit?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Face it your word games don't change a thing they told the woman they were trying to catch a fleeing felon, which would mean the same thing as being in pursuit of a fleeing felon by most people who understand the English language.

Now, riddle me this. Why hasn't the MSM or ACLU or any other civil rights lawyer jumped on this issue? Could it be the police used the magical words that allowed them to perform a warrant-less search per the Exigent Circumstances requirements of NY law/US Constitution?

 

[rudeguy]

Face it your word games don't change a thing they told the woman they were trying to catch a fleeing felon, which would mean the same thing as being in pursuit of a fleeing felon by most people who understand the English language.

Now, riddle me this. Why hasn't the MSM or ACLU or any other civil rights lawyer jumped on this issue? Could it be the police used the magical words that allowed them to perform a warrant-less search per the Exigent Circumstances requirements of NY law/US Constitution?

Can't answer a simple question?

 

[emperus]

Trying to catch a fleeing felon seems to meet that criteria. What if that person had shot someone you cared about around the corner?

You trying to bring irrational emotions into a rational discussion. Are you arguing that is what happened in this case?

But you never answered my question. Let me ask it again. . Please explain what language the cops used and or any of their mannerisms that led you to believe that they needed to enter without a warrant because they were in "hot pursuit of a serious criminal or to capture one who’s about to escape".

The key words again being hot and about to escape.

Just saying you are looking for a fleeing suspect doesn't meet the criteria. The right form unreasonable searches and seizures is codified in our constitution by the 4th amendment. And the Supreme court has carved out very specific and narrow exceptions. So, yes, the language of the cops and the spirit of what the cops were actually doing is very important.

Furthermore. In the requirements of exigent circumstances you posted. You have this.

Judges usually find that if the police had less than half an hour in which to act, then proceeding without a warrant is reasonable

That again doesn't seem to fit the description of what was happening as the cops looked like they had all the time in the world.

 

[Meghan54]

Face it your word games don't change a thing they told the woman they were trying to catch a fleeing felon, which would mean the same thing as being in pursuit of a fleeing felon by most people who understand the English language.

In pursuit of a fleeing felon....your words. So, this implies that the cops watched or were close behind the fleeing felon to either see him enter that apt. or knew he was in there. But their questioning did not represent that they saw him enter nor did any of the cops appear to have been in any sort of chase, unless they were all using Segways to chase.

Don't know about you, but even running only 100 yards will induce heavier than normal breathing, sweating, you know, signs of physical exertion that none of the cops showed.

And impending escape implies that the suspect is there and about to get away. Wonder why the cops never found the suspect they allegedly chased into the apartment in the first place.

The cops were searching for a suspect, not actively chasing one. If they were actively chasing him, why wasn't he there? Why ask "Do you know this person?" of the woman at the door? Why stand in the door in the first place instead of continuing the chase? Why was the answer to the question about how'd they get the woman's address as "We were told he was here."

None of that sounds like hot pursuit but instead searching for someone and having a lead.....not hot pursuit and no expectation of impending escape--something that couldn't happen because he wasn't there in the first place.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So please explain why this has not been reported by the main stream media. No outrage/interest from the ACLU or civil right activist groups.

No questions for the NYPD, not even a press release from the NYPD concerning the issue.

Chances are a judge has already reviewed this situation and decided the police had the required probable cause to meet the Exigent Circumstances requirement of NY law and the warrant-less search was legal.

 

[rudeguy]

So please explain why this has not been reported by the main stream media. No outrage/interest from the ACLU or civil right activist groups.

No questions for the NYPD, not even a press release from the NYPD concerning the issue.

Chances are a judge has already reviewed this situation and decided the police had the required probable cause to meet the Exigent Circumstances requirement of NY law and the warrant-less search was legal.

Please post proof of such.

Just because you make shit up doesn't mean its true.

Just because you don't answer a question doesn't mean you weren't wrong.

Just because the main stream media doesn't pick up a story doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Please provide proof it hasn't occurred.

Just because you don't believe something it doesn't mean it hasn't occurred.

 

[CZroe]

Derp

It seems like he still doesn't get the concept of "if." No one is saying it is or isn't true. IF it is true THEN ...