Results 1 to 20 of 33
05-22-06, 02:27 PM #1
Cops can just walk into your home w/o permission!
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"When I'm driving along and I see a sign that says, CAUTION: SMALL CHILDREN AHEAD,
I slow down, and then it occurs to me, I'm not afraid of small children"!
05-22-06, 02:46 PM #2
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.\\` ` ` ` < ` )___/\
`` ` ` ` (3--(____)
"...but to forget your duck, of course, means you're really screwed." - Gary Larson
05-22-06, 02:53 PM #3
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.Here Speeder, Speeder, Speeder
"Oderint dum metuant" - Caligula
"How come you only call me when someone's dead?"
05-22-06, 03:54 PM #4
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.
05-22-06, 04:06 PM #5
Two words: exigent circumstances.Are you a 3%er? If you aren't, you should be.
05-22-06, 04:23 PM #6
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!! lolIt is better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6.
An invisible red thread connects those who are destined to meet, regardless of time, place, or circumstance. The thread may stretch or tangle, but will never break.
In vino veritas!
05-22-06, 04:53 PM #7Originally Posted by Memphis
What if it's two drama majors inside practicing a play? And you shoot one of them?
05-22-06, 04:57 PM #8Originally Posted by TheeBadOne
05-22-06, 06:33 PM #9Originally Posted by Sheriff
05-22-06, 06:51 PM #10Originally Posted by Ducky
05-22-06, 07:16 PM #11FishTail Guest
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).
05-22-06, 07:23 PM #12Originally Posted by LongTail
05-22-06, 07:23 PM #13
To shoot or not to shoot?Originally Posted by Memphis
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.
Originally Posted by Memphis
05-22-06, 07:32 PM #14Originally Posted by Crimebytes2
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.
05-22-06, 07:36 PM #15
This simply reaffirms the laws that are already in place involving exigent circumstances.
05-22-06, 07:39 PM #16FishTail GuestOriginally Posted by Retdetsgt
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.
05-22-06, 09:20 PM #17Originally Posted by Retdetsgt
Originally Posted by Retdetsge
Dare I say that all persons are guilty until proven innocent?
05-22-06, 10:14 PM #18Originally Posted by Crimebytes2
that's a true statement.
05-22-06, 10:48 PM #19Originally Posted by MonsterMash
"I am the guy that keeps Mister Dead in his pocket." -'Mad' Max Rockatansky
"An Englewood Ranger is no stranger to Danger.." -Unk
Good Night Chesty Where Ever You Are.
A Good Friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying, "That was Awesome."
God Made Police Men so Fireman Would Have Heroes.
05-22-06, 11:11 PM #20Originally Posted by StanSwitek
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By BEB in forum The GymnasiumReplies: 27Last Post: 05-28-08, 11:40 AM
By So Fla Cop in forum General TopicsReplies: 0Last Post: 07-15-07, 08:48 PM
By Terminator in forum In the NewsReplies: 10Last Post: 01-09-07, 06:36 AM
By Jay7376 in forum In the NewsReplies: 2Last Post: 01-10-06, 08:20 PM