|
|
Post by Haseen on May 17, 2011 4:25:08 GMT -5
You know, the one protecting your home and property from unreasonable search and seizure. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdfCops chase a drug dealer down a hallway, and he enters one of two doors at the end. They don't see which door. They enter the wrong room, which also happens to have drugs, and bust those people. Then they go into the other room and get the original perp. At no time did they get a warrant to enter (the wrong room), and they later said they entered on the pretense of hearing people moving around "destroying evidence." This after they knocked, creating the situation, and noise that could've honestly been anything. The KY supreme court had thrown out the evidence because it was an invalid search, but the USSC overturned that. So now the cops can create their own "exigent circumstances—the need to prevent destruction of evidence", by knocking, announcing themselves, and hearing movement behind the door. This avoids that whole pesky process of establishing probable cause and getting a search warrant. TL;DR Cops can bang on a door, "hear something", and enter a home or apartment without permission or a warrant. So long fourth amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on May 17, 2011 4:33:34 GMT -5
It the new standard 'hot pusuit' or 'reasonable belief that a crime is being committed'? Or is it just 'police can do whatever they want and you can't complain and then they can use the stuff they found in their illegal search'?
Cause hot pursuit and resonable belief are both in effect in Australia and that's not been hugely bad, albeit often misused.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 17, 2011 7:08:45 GMT -5
This is nothing new.
Police could already enter without a warrant if there were exigent circumstances. (The exigent circumstances cannot be created by police actions, but these weren't. These circumstances were created by the suspect running away though a doorway.) There has never been a need for a warrant if a pursuit that began in public went into a private residence. (It would make it too easy for suspects to escape.) There has never been a requirement that officers ignore evidence of a crime if it is in plain view.
One final thing... The officers had a warrant for the arrest, which means probable cause existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 17, 2011 7:18:49 GMT -5
Am I going to have to write a thesis paper of a reply?
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 17, 2011 7:56:09 GMT -5
Anti-cop shitstorm #2351729 incoming in 3... 2... 1...
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 17, 2011 10:24:08 GMT -5
Yay, another one of these threads
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 17, 2011 11:32:06 GMT -5
Am I going to have to write a thesis paper of a reply? Maybe you could just limit it to the premise. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 17, 2011 16:22:36 GMT -5
It all has to do with plainview and there are different rules when you're on a chase.
Is that small enough of a reply?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on May 17, 2011 17:19:35 GMT -5
What Shane said.
Ironbite-this happened during a chase not just a cop showing up and wanting in your house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 19, 2011 3:48:40 GMT -5
It all has to do with plainview and there are different rules when you're on a chase. Is that small enough of a reply? The apartment had nothing to do with the guy being chased. Dude ran into apartment A, cops busted into apartment B. IANAL, but does losing a perp really give cops a blanket privilege to search everyone along that path for unrelated crimes? |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 19, 2011 4:12:58 GMT -5
You're making it seem like they went out of their way to search every single apartment.
Seriously. I could crack open my textbook if you like. I just found it the other day.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 19, 2011 7:15:54 GMT -5
The apartment had nothing to do with the guy being chased. Dude ran into apartment A, cops busted into apartment B. IANAL, but does losing a perp really give cops a blanket privilege to search everyone along that path for unrelated crimes? There's two issues there, and neither was improper procedure. First, police can follow a suspect into a home if the chase began in public. (This one did. The police went into the wrong apartment, granted, but they did not know that. They had a 50/50 chance of the right one and just picked wrong.) Second, police do not have to disregard evidence of illegal activity if that evidence is in plain sight. (If an officer walks by a house, looks through the window, and sees people bagging cocaine, the officer can use that as probable cause for a warrant. The officer does not have to ignore it because they did not have have a warrant when they looked in the window.) |
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 19, 2011 15:52:52 GMT -5
There's two issues there, and neither was improper procedure. First, police can follow a suspect into a home if the chase began in public. (This one did. The police went into the wrong apartment, granted, but they did not know that. They had a 50/50 chance of the right one and just picked wrong.) Second, police do not have to disregard evidence of illegal activity if that evidence is in plain sight. (If an officer walks by a house, looks through the window, and sees people bagging cocaine, the officer can use that as probable cause for a warrant. The officer does not have to ignore it because they did not have have a warrant when they looked in the window.) I would agree IF they actually bothered to get a warrant. If that's where they genuinely believe the chase was going, then I would agree with them going into that apartment. But as long as it's the wrong apartment, the evidence shouldn't be admissible because it wasn't found in an actual search. Now if the chase went into that apartment, cops pretended not to see drugs, but used the eyewitness account to obtain a warrant and come back, I would totally agree with that. Or if the chase legitimately went into that apartment. I just take issue with the idea of cops entering a private area without permission, and/or creating their own exigent circumstances, and then using that to gather evidence without a warrant. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 19, 2011 16:07:12 GMT -5
There's two issues there, and neither was improper procedure. First, police can follow a suspect into a home if the chase began in public. (This one did. The police went into the wrong apartment, granted, but they did not know that. They had a 50/50 chance of the right one and just picked wrong.) Second, police do not have to disregard evidence of illegal activity if that evidence is in plain sight. (If an officer walks by a house, looks through the window, and sees people bagging cocaine, the officer can use that as probable cause for a warrant. The officer does not have to ignore it because they did not have have a warrant when they looked in the window.) I would agree IF they actually bothered to get a warrant. If that's where they genuinely believe the chase was going, then I would agree with them going into that apartment. But as long as it's the wrong apartment, the evidence shouldn't be admissible because it wasn't found in an actual search. Now if the chase went into that apartment, cops pretended not to see drugs, but used the eyewitness account to obtain a warrant and come back, I would totally agree with that. Or if the chase legitimately went into that apartment. I just take issue with the idea of cops entering a private area without permission, and/or creating their own exigent circumstances, and then using that to gather evidence without a warrant. It's called PLAIN VIEW SEARCH. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on May 19, 2011 16:08:27 GMT -5
I would agree IF they actually bothered to get a warrant. If that's where they genuinely believe the chase was going, then I would agree with them going into that apartment. But as long as it's the wrong apartment, the evidence shouldn't be admissible because it wasn't found in an actual search. Now if the chase went into that apartment, cops pretended not to see drugs, but used the eyewitness account to obtain a warrant and come back, I would totally agree with that. Or if the chase legitimately went into that apartment. I just take issue with the idea of cops entering a private area without permission, and/or creating their own exigent circumstances, and then using that to gather evidence without a warrant. ....and you expect the drugs to still be there? What if the cops had come across a rape when busting in on the wrong apartment? Or evidence of a murder? The think is the cops did not create their own circumstances. The guy running from them did. |
|
