|
|
Post by eldalar on May 19, 2011 16:51:21 GMT -5
Don't really know what to think about that, on one hand it wasn't the fault of the police and the police shouldn't have to look away when they see evidences of a crime.
On the other hand it would be veeeery easy to build yourself free search warrants. How exactly can you prove, that the police wasn't chasing some guy that got away and only accidently entered your appartment to search for the guy? I know most of policemen are decent guys, just doing their job, but well some aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 19, 2011 17:00:37 GMT -5
Because if a suspect is fleeing like that they need to report it while they chase. Do you have any idea how much shit would come down on a cop's head if they said they were in pursuit of a suspect on-foot when there wasn't any suspect?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 19, 2011 17:01:13 GMT -5
There is a lot of time spent in investigations and to make sure the officers acted properly when it comes to plain view searches.
Trust me, it's very easy to go to your police captain and say 'well, I saw the gun under a bit of newspaper' when in actuality you moved the newspaper then saw the gun. But it doesn't really happen. Because you get the book thrown at you.
Again, it's hardly a case of them conjuring up an excuse to search.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 19, 2011 17:32:18 GMT -5
[quote author=erictheblue board=pg thread=8804 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.[/quote] They had a warrant for the person they were pursuing. They do not need (and never needed) a warrant to go into a house when in pursuit of a person. They do not need (and never needed) a warrant to enter when exigent circumstances (not created by the police), which was the case here. (The exigent circumstances were created by the defendant running into an apartment and the sounds of shuffling - destruction of evidence - behind the door.) What makes you think they did not believe it? If their intent was to arrest the drug dealer, why would they intentionally go into into the wrong apartment, giving the person they want to arrest the chance to get away? The evidence was in plain view. It's no different than if an officer had walked by and seen the drugs through the window. Forgive me for laughing. Do you really think the evidence would still be there when the cops came back? Really? See above. The officers DIDN'T create the exigent circumstances. The suspect did by running into an apartment. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on May 19, 2011 17:33:48 GMT -5
How exactly can you prove, that the police wasn't chasing some guy that got away and only accidently entered your appartment to search for the guy? I know most of policemen are decent guys, just doing their job, but well some aren't. Pre-existing arrest warrant. Radio reports during the chase. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 19, 2011 17:58:33 GMT -5
Then of course like I said, different rules during a search.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on May 19, 2011 23:14:44 GMT -5
I still think it's insane that a botched chase could produce what is considered valid plain view evidence which only came into plain view after they fucked up the chase and went into a private area that they otherwise couldn't enter. But maybe that's just me. Also, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be because the SCOTUS *did* have to overturn the state supreme court decision, and I assume the state supreme court also knows a little about the law.
But, agree to disagree, etc. I'm done, laugh out loud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 20, 2011 0:31:55 GMT -5
I still think it's insane that a botched chase could produce what is considered valid plain view evidence which only came into plain view after they fucked up the chase and went into a private area that they otherwise couldn't enter. But maybe that's just me. Also, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be because the SCOTUS *did* have to overturn the state supreme court decision, and I assume the state supreme court also knows a little about the law. But, agree to disagree, etc. I'm done, laugh out loud. How was the chase "botched"? How would the police have been acting in bad faith? As I recall, the 4th amendment has been interpreted as protecting against abuse of power, and that allowances can be made for good faith mistakes. I.E, cases where the officers involved reasonably believed that their conduct did not violate the suspects' rights. I would consider picking the wrong door (out of two) during a chase in which you briefly lost sight of the suspect could be reasonably considered a "good faith" mistake. I could be remembering completely wrong, or outdated precedent though. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 20, 2011 0:37:35 GMT -5
Yeah, um... suspect runs into a dead end, he's not there, there's two doors and no evidence of which one was opened recently, and you hear movement behind one of them. Which one would you choose?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 20, 2011 0:47:34 GMT -5
I still think it's insane that a botched chase could produce what is considered valid plain view evidence which only came into plain view after they fucked up the chase and went into a private area that they otherwise couldn't enter. But maybe that's just me. Also, it's not as clear cut as some of you make it out to be because the SCOTUS *did* have to overturn the state supreme court decision, and I assume the state supreme court also knows a little about the law. But, agree to disagree, etc. I'm done, laugh out loud. Please define botched. Please explain to me what you would do when you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right door during a chase. Please explain to me what you would do if you picked Door #1 that had evidence of a serial killer at large. You just going to go 'WHOOPS! Wrong door. Better go get another search warrant even though the evidence will probably vanish before I get back! Oh well! Serial killer will get away! But at least people won't accuse me of anything!' |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 20, 2011 0:52:16 GMT -5
He gave up. No point in asking questions, it appears.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 20, 2011 2:48:24 GMT -5
What kills me is that everyone is assuming that the police were correct in ASSUMING the sounds behind the door were people "getting rid of evidence".
They could just as easily have been, oh, running around and getting dressed so they could answer the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on May 20, 2011 3:56:54 GMT -5
Specifically, they assumed it was their suspect destroying evidence. The charming fellow whom they apparently had very good reason to suspect of having evidence on his person? So no, no one is assuming they were correct. They were wrong, insofar as he wasn't even there. What we are assuming is that it constitutes good reason to choose that door over the other door.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on May 20, 2011 4:27:03 GMT -5
What I'm assuming is that it was all falling under plain view search and seizure clauses. Which it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on May 20, 2011 8:30:25 GMT -5
What kills me is that everyone is assuming that the police were correct in ASSUMING the sounds behind the door were people "getting rid of evidence". They could just as easily have been, oh, running around and getting dressed so they could answer the door. No one is assuming they were right. It was the wrong apartment, it is not a question. They were incorrect as to what the sound was. What then becomes the question is, IIRC, was that assumption on their part reasonable when they chose that door? They have chased a valid suspect into a building, suspect has gone into one of two doors, there is no clear way to tell which door has been opened recently, they hear movement on the other side of one door, they choose that one. What they thought/worried the noise was (suspect destroying evidence, suspect getting a weapon, suspect beating someone up, suspect changing into a clown costume, et al) is immaterial. They were in a lawful pursuit of a suspect, suspect disappeared into one of two doors, they chose the door with audible movement going on behind it. It was reasonable to believe that their suspect was behind that door, they acted in good faith going into that apartment, there is nothing wrong with the search. And what is the "answer the door" comment you proffered? I somehow doubt that police officers in pursuit of a suspect politely knocked on both doors hoping their possibly-now-armed suspect answered and gave himself up. |
|
