Cops can just walk into your home w/o permission!

[TheeBadOne]

Supreme Court Rules Police Don't Need Warrants in Emergencies

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.

Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in going inside a home in 2000 after peering through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence, even though they could not announce their arrival over loud noise of a party.

"The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided," Roberts wrote.

The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.

When the adults realized the officers were inside the house, they allegedly became abusive and were charged with disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor — all misdemeanors.

In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Utah courts could still find that the police entry was unreasonable under Utah's Constitution. He called it "an odd flyspeck of a case," and said he was unsure why courts had spent so much time on a matter involving minor offenses.

The Supreme Court has devoted a surprising amount of attention this year to the rights of people whose homes were searched over their objections.

In March, the court said that police cannot search a home when one resident invites them in but another tells them to go away. Last week, justices held a special re-argument to decide whether police armed with a search warrant can rush into a home without knocking and seize evidence for use at a trial.

Roberts said in Monday's ruling that officers did everything right when they arrived about 3 a.m. after getting a complaint about a loud party. They saw juveniles drinking beer in the backyard.

After seeing the scuffle through a back window, an officer opened a screen door and tried to announce the arrival of police.

"When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside," Roberts wrote. He said the officers "were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence."

The case is Brigham City v. Stuart, 05-502.



link

[Ducky]

If a cop stopped by my place and saw me getting my ass handed to me by someone - ANYONE - then damn skippy I want them there, regardless of their announcement.

[Radar]

If you look at the basis of the scenario and the supreme courts response, your surprised why?

If i'm driving by a see through a large front window of a home, a man standing over a person with a gun to their head inside the home, would it be illegal of me to shoot the individual?

The world is full of perplex scenarios and outcomes, fact is, I'm glad the courts ruled that way.

It's not like we can just barge in unannounced without seeing probable cause to enter. So in a way, we are entering with permission. The permission given to us by observed criminial intent/and or probable cause, coupled with notifing them of our entry in the best manor we can, while preserving the safety of life and preservation of evidence.

Ok so i'm just talking out my ass, but hopefully some of that made sense.

I'm glad you posted this on the public side. It would be interesting to see the publics response on here.

[Retdetsgt]

I can see a reason to go in and to charge the occupants of the crime witnessed by the police.

I don't think that would give the police the right to search nor use evidence of another crime (i.e. drug possession).

When I was a young cop, it wasn't uncommon for some of my brethern to go to a pay phone and make an "anonymous" phone call to dispatch saying a woman was being beaten at a certain address. After entering the residence, they would then search and arrest people for drug possession.

Like all favorable rules and laws, we usually lose them because of shit like that. We are definitely our own worst enemy.

[MonsterMash]

Two words: exigent circumstances.

[kdm0409]

2 Officers went on a call about a year ago. It was a noise complaint. They had been to the same house a few times during the same night. Upon arrival the 3rd time a female answers the door and says the one with the music up is in the back, go ahead and go talk to him. They enter the house and go to a closed door. They knock on the door and say "Police". No answer, they knock louder and yell "Police" (the radio was so loud the guy couldn't hear) At this point, the door is opened by a male subject smoking a doobie! He looks at the cops and yells oh shit. He tries to run, but doesn't get far. In plain view, there was 3 bongs, some other pipes, and a lot of green leafy substance! They arrest the guy for possesion of drug parephernalia, simple possesion, and a few other charges.

A year later, this guy is saying that all his rights were violated saying the police barged in the house and he is wanting to sue the officers, and he is representing himself! lol The funny thing is the house belongs to the female that let the officers in, which happens to be momma!! lol

[Sheriff]

If i'm driving by a see through a large front window of a home, a man standing over a person with a gun to their head inside the home, would it be illegal of me to shoot the individual?

The world is full of perplex scenarios.....

Yeah, you just created one.

What if it's two drama majors inside practicing a play? And you shoot one of them?

[Sheriff]

In March, the court said that police cannot search a home when one resident invites them in but another tells them to go away.

This one I agree with. If a husband makes $200,000 a year, pays the mortgage payment, and buys the furniture...... why should it be OK for the wife to let police in and give them permission to search?

[Retdetsgt]

This one I agree with. If a husband makes $200,000 a year, pays the mortgage payment, and buys the furniture...... why should it be OK for the wife to let police in and give them permission to search?

Or vice versa. The issue isn't who makes the payments, it's the idea of forfeiting somebody else's constitutional rights.

[Crimebytes2]

If a cop stopped by my place and saw me getting my ass handed to me by someone - ANYONE - then damn skippy I want them there, regardless of their announcement.

I second that, Ducky!

[FishTail]

Man...it's so much easier here. In the case before the court, I could have entered to prevent a breach of the peace. Once I'm lawfully on the premises, anything I find is lawfully found (though I can't go looking).

[Retdetsgt]

Man...it's so much easier here. In the case before the court, I could have entered to prevent a breach of the peace. Once I'm lawfully on the premises, anything I find is lawfully found (though I can't go looking).

You can enter to PREVENT a breach of the peace?

[Crimebytes2]

If i'm driving by a see through a large front window of a home, a man standing over a person with a gun to their head inside the home, would it be illegal of me to shoot the individual?

I would think you would want to ask a few questions first. For example...

Officer Memphis: "Excuse me, sir. Would you care to explain why you're standing over that gentleman with a gun to his head?"

On the other hand, by the time you finish asking your question(s), the gentleman could be dead. So what do you do? I would not want to have to make that decision.

I'm glad you posted this on the public side. It would be interesting to see the publics response on here.

I don't have a problem with this at all. Crime expands according to our willingness to put up with it. Perhaps if people stopped complaining (those who complain the loudest are generally the ones who contribute the least) and started letting the police do their job; the good ole USA would be a much better place.

[Retdetsgt]

Perhaps if people stopped complaining (those who complain the loudest are generally the ones who contribute the least) and started letting the police do their job; the good ole USA would be a much better place.

Or it would be a police state. I really doubt you would like that either.

I had the misfortune to grow in an era and an area where cops could do just about anything they wanted to. If all cops were warm, wonderful humans who only wanted to do what was right, that would be fine, but having worked in the field most of my adult life, I can report to you there are some that ain't.

[StanSwitek]

This simply reaffirms the laws that are already in place involving exigent circumstances.

[FishTail]

You can enter to PREVENT a breach of the peace?

Straight from the notes:

A breach of the peace can occur on private premises (one of the principal decisions in the McConnell case). If the police have genuine grounds to apprehend such a breach, they have a right to enter private premises to make an arrest or ensure that one does not occur; Thomas v Sawkins. The right of entry is not absolute, but must be weighed against the degree of disturbance which is threatened. For example, smashing down a door to stop a drunken argument is likely to be excessive unless it is threatening to escalate towards violence.

So the power of entry is for an ongoing breach or an apprehended breach that might occur in the immediate future.

[Crimebytes2]

Or it would be a police state. I really doubt you would like that either.

No doubt, you're right. Why do I fear we are headed in this direction as I type this?

If all cops were warm, wonderful humans who only wanted to do what was right, that would be fine, but having worked in the field most of my adult life, I can report to you there are some that ain't.

This makes the job of all police officers even more difficult than it has to be. I try not to worry about this though as the bad apples will usually make it to the top of the basket rather quickly (hopefully before too much damage is done). IMHO, the criminals have more power/rights than do police/law-abiding citizens.

Dare I say that all persons are guilty until proven innocent?

[Sheriff]

Dare I say that all persons are guilty until proven innocent?

Because of the media nowadays.....

that's a true statement.

[Pedro56]

Two words: exigent circumstances.

Lol, don't forget the other 2 words that I love so well, Plain View.

[Darin]

This simply reaffirms the laws that are already in place involving exigent circumstances.

Yep nothing really new.