Where is the line?

[bigus_D]

If the 911 call response is truly the reason for forcing entry into a house, then should they have to ignore the bag of dope on the table once it is established that the 911 call was accidental or a mistake on the dispatch/phone system end? I say there shouldn't be any arrests made.

From another thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e_cops_show_up_at_my_house_the_other_day.html

This comment sparked a thought for me. Where is the line? I totally agree, an unrelated emergency call (think heart-attack) should not result in an arrest (think bag of pot on the coffee table).

But, what if I'm a cop responding to an errantly reported 911 call address and I stumble across a some people trapped under the stairs (think 'The People Under the Stairs' circa 1990)? Does the murderer/rapists/whatever get to go free and keep the kids under the stairs?

How should this line be drawn?

 

[hornadylnl]

From another thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e_cops_show_up_at_my_house_the_other_day.html

This comment sparked a thought for me. Where is the line? I totally agree, an unrelated emergency call (think heart-attack) should not result in an arrest (think bag of pot on the coffee table).

But, what if I'm a cop responding to an errantly reported 911 call address and I stumble across a some people trapped under the stairs (think 'The People Under the Stairs' circa 1990)? Does the murderer/rapists/whatever get to go free and keep the kids under the stairs?

How should this line be drawn?

When it comes to laws, I hate grey areas. I want black and white everywhere possible. Where do you draw a line in this case? I don't know.

To act as though anything less than stripping drywall off a house because they received an errant 911 is the fault of police when their were children found under the stairs later is ridiculous. They didn't have cause to find them before the errant call.

I like to fall on the side of liberty. Will some be hurt in those circumstances? You bet. What percentage of your liberty are you willing to give up for a level of security that makes you comfortable? If we had an officer assigned to every person in the country, we'd be much safer. Is that what we want?

 

[Fargo]

Riddle me this: how does excluding evidence in any way protect your liberty? Your liberty got poo'd on as soon as an illegal search happened. So far as I can tell, all it does is allow criminals to escape responsibility for their crimes. It does little to nothing to prevent the illegal search.

Joe

 

[groovatron]

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say that these things are not at all comparable. If someone's life is in danger, it is a completely different situation than a bag-o-weed.

Also, I want to clear up some confusion. Cops do not need a warrant to enter your house. They can be invited in or use probable cause. In the case of a 911 call, then that is their probable cause....(at least that is what I think....I'm sure the LEO's will clear that up) In any case, once they are lawfully in your house, warrant or not, then anything in plain view would absolutely be admissable in court.

 

[Fargo]

.

Also, I want to clear up some confusion. Cops do not need a warrant to enter your house. They can be invited in or use probable cause. In the case of a 911 call, then that is their probable cause....(at least that is what I think....I'm sure the LEO's will clear that up) In any case, once they are lawfully in your house, warrant or not, then anything in plain view would absolutely be admissable in court.

Actually, the current caselaw is that any warrantless search/entry of a home is presumed unreasonable and so unconstitutional unless it fits into one of the established exceptions such as consent, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances etc. Probable cause alone is not enough when it comes to homes, you have to go get a warrant unless you fall into one of the exceptions.

Best,

Joe

 

[Benny]

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and say that these things are not at all comparable. If someone's life is in danger, it is a completely different situation than a bag-o-weed.

Also, I want to clear up some confusion. Cops do not need a warrant to enter your house. They can be invited in or use probable cause. In the case of a 911 call, then that is their probable cause....(at least that is what I think....I'm sure the LEO's will clear that up) In any case, once they are lawfully in your house, warrant or not, then anything in plain view would absolutely be admissable in court.

/Thread.

 

[hornadylnl]

Riddle me this: how does excluding evidence in any way protect your liberty? Your liberty got poo'd on as soon as an illegal search happened. So far as I can tell, all it does is allow criminals to escape responsibility for their crimes. It does little to nothing to prevent the illegal search.

Joe

Is the glass half full or half empty? Not much purpose in doing an illegal search if anything they find is inadmissable is there?

That's why I like laws that are black and white. If you get pulled over for speeding, there is a radar to prove it. Quit crying, take your ticket and stfu. For things like disturbing the peace, is there a meter that you stick in the air and a needle measures the disturbance?

 

[Fargo]

Is the glass half full or half empty? Not much purpose in doing an illegal search if anything they find is inadmissable is there?

Yeah, and the approximately 100 yrs we've had the exclusionary rule has really put an end to illegal searches. NOT! History has kinda proven your logic incorrect.

Plus, what exactly is your concern here? Is it the violation of your home, or is it bearing responsibility for your illegal acts? If it is the violation of your home, the exclusion of evidence is happening way after the fact.

That's why I like laws that are black and white. If you get pulled over for speeding, there is a radar to prove it. Quit crying, take your ticket and stfu. For things like disturbing the peace, is there a meter that you stick in the air and a needle measures the disturbance?

No, there is a judge who hears the evidence from both sides and determines whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute was violated. I like black and white laws too, but unfortunately reality isn't as black and white as either of us would like it to be.

Best,


Joe

 

[hornadylnl]

Yeah, and the approximately 100 yrs we've had the exclusionary rule has really put an end to illegal searches. NOT! History has kinda proven your logic incorrect.

Plus, what exactly is your concern here? Is it the violation of your home, or is it bearing responsibility for your illegal acts? If it is the violation of your home, the exclusion of evidence is happening way after the fact.

No, there is a judge who hears the evidence from both sides and determines whether the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute was violated. I like black and white laws too, but unfortunately reality isn't as black and white as either of us would like it to be.

Best,


Joe

It's the violation of my home that I'm worried about. I do agree that exclusion of evidence is too late for that. I don't know what the answers are here and do agree that it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for officers to. I'm just voicing my concerns here for the potential of abuse.

 

[Fargo]

It's the violation of my home that I'm worried about. I do agree that exclusion of evidence is too late for that. I don't know what the answers are here and do agree that it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for officers to. I'm just voicing my concerns here for the potential of abuse.

I am completely with you in your concerns. I would much prefer to see a system that actually punishes officers who willfully violate the constitution rather than the current system we have that really just punishes society by letting criminals free.

Best,

Joe

 

[SavageEagle]

I have a good idea where to draw the line. If the officer is in the house without a warrant, only violent felonies (i.e. murder, rape, kidnapping, etc) are arrestable. Other things should be let go. Minor misdemeanors like a bag-o-weed or whatever should be let go. Now, IIRC, with a warrant, the officer(s) can only search and arrest for things listed in the warrant. Right? If so, the same should apply.

 

[groovatron]

I have a good idea where to draw the line. If the officer is in the house without a warrant, only violent felonies (i.e. murder, rape, kidnapping, etc) are arrestable. Other things should be let go. Minor misdemeanors like a bag-o-weed or whatever should be let go. Now, IIRC, with a warrant, the officer(s) can only search and arrest for things listed in the warrant. Right? If so, the same should apply.

What he said

 

[groovatron]

Actually, the current caselaw is that any warrantless search/entry of a home is presumed unreasonable and so unconstitutional unless it fits into one of the established exceptions such as consent, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances etc. Probable cause alone is not enough when it comes to homes, you have to go get a warrant unless you fall into one of the exceptions.

Best,

Joe

So, if a cop comes to your house for a noise complaint, smells weed.............he uses that as probable cause and enters the house to find paraphenalia and drugs......that's not legal? I thought that probable cause was enough to enter the home without a warrant. Interesting..

 

[Doug]

OK, so LEO comes to the door and claims a 911 call was made. He asks to come in and check to make sure everything is all right.
I say, "No."
Now what happens?
Will he claim 911 call is probable cause and come in anyway?

What ARE my rights (Not what should they be) and what will the LEO do?

Or is it like on "Law and Order" where the cop says, "Gee, Lennie, I think I just heard somebody yell for help," and, then, draws his gun and goes on in.

Doug

 

[SavageEagle]

So, if a cop comes to your house for a noise complaint, smells weed.............he uses that as probable cause and enters the house to find paraphenalia and drugs......that's not legal? I thought that probable cause was enough to enter the home without a warrant. Interesting..

The problem with that scenario, and coming from personal experiance, is that the smell might not be coming from your home. When I lived in my apartment before here, all my neighbors smoked. I didn't mind because they kept it to themselves except for one who did something I didn't agree with. Smoke in front of their kids. Whole nuther thread there.

ANYWAY. One night I get a knock on the door about 10pm or so to about 3-4 officers with guns drawn. I opened the door and they just came in. After a 2 minute fuss they said they smelled weed coming from my apartment. Well, I had quit before we moved in but they didn't care. They did a visual sweep of my home before moving to the next apartment.

Nobody was arrested that night at all, but I think 6 apartments were handled the same way as we were.

Now tell me that's legal.

 

[Fargo]

I have a good idea where to draw the line. If the officer is in the house without a warrant, only violent felonies (i.e. murder, rape, kidnapping, etc) are arrestable. Other things should be let go. Minor misdemeanors like a bag-o-weed or whatever should be let go. Now, IIRC, with a warrant, the officer(s) can only search and arrest for things listed in the warrant. Right? If so, the same should apply.

Wrong! They can only seach for what is listed, but they can arrest for anything that is illegal that they come across during that search.

Why is it that you think things that are illegal should be let go? If you don't like the law, why don't you try to get it changed instead of creating inventive rules to get around the laws passed by our representatives? You sound like you don't trust us to rule ourselves because you disagree with the pot laws and that isn't very libertarian of you.

Joe

 

[SavageEagle]

Right and wrong then. If they have a warrant to search my living room and kitchen but find pot in my bedroom that is illegal search and seizure. Pure and simple. I did some checking and I'm right. They can't just arrest you for whatever they find. If it's out of bounds, so to say, of the warrant, they have no right.

I don't think things that are illegal should be let go, but if they gather the evidence illegally, the law stands. So in reality YOU sound like a hypocrite by telling ME...

If you don't like the law, why don't you try to get it changed instead of creating inventive rules to get around the laws passed by our representatives? You sound like you don't trust us to rule ourselves because you disagree with the pot laws and that isn't very libertarian of you.

...What you DIDN'T know is that I AM pushing to get the laws changed in many different areas. Also, I didn't say I was a Libertarian either. Ever. What is it they say about assumption?

So. What are YOU doing to change the laws YOU don't like?

 

[Fargo]

Right and wrong then. If they have a warrant to search my living room and kitchen but find pot in my bedroom that is illegal search and seizure. Pure and simple. I did some checking and I'm right. They can't just arrest you for whatever they find. If it's out of bounds, so to say, of the warrant, they have no right.

?

Wrong again. Even if the evidence they discover is outside the scope of the warrant, they can still arrest you and they almost certainly will. The evidence just can't be admitted against you in court if it was illegally obtained and you object to its admission.

I don't think things that are illegal should be let go, but if they gather the evidence illegally, the law stands.

Yeah, now you have both parties breaking the law. I see no reason that they shouldn't both get whacked. You seem to be content with letting them both off.

So in reality YOU sound like a hypocrite by telling ME...

...What you DIDN'T know is that I AM pushing to get the laws changed in many different areas. Also, I didn't say I was a Libertarian either. Ever. What is it they say about assumption?

How do I sound like a hypocrite? I'm not saying to do one thing and then doing another myself. Are you sure that word means what you think it means? Also, I never said you were a libertarian; I just said you weren't acting like one.

So. What are YOU doing to change the laws YOU don't like

Plenty. Among other things, I'm working on drafting legislation to modify Indiana's handgun laws in conjunction with a member of the judicial comittee that adivses the legislature.

Joe

 

[SavageEagle]

Wrong again. Even if the evidence they discover is outside the scope of the warrant, they can still arrest you and they almost certainly will. The evidence just can't be admitted against you in court if it was illegally obtained and you object to its admission.

If they arrest me for something they found outside the scope of the warrant they are in violation of the law and charges will be filed and my case dismissed. Chances are they won't arrest me when they hear that. If they do, I'll follow through. Period.

Yeah, now you have both parties breaking the law. I see no reason that they shouldn't both get whacked. You seem to be content with letting them both off.

IMHO, you can only break a law that is a legal law. If it's unConstitutional, and you break that law, you've done nothing wrong. If any of my statements seem to imply that I would be content with letting my right be violated I'd love to see what you see cause I don't see it.

How do I sound like a hypocrite? I'm not saying to do one thing and then doing another myself. Are you sure that word means what you think it means? Also, I never said you were a libertarian; I just said you weren't acting like one.

Well, for starters, you seem to be ok with letting LE enter your home without a warrant because they THINK you might be breaking the law. But turn around and say they should be arrested for it.

Plenty. Among other things, I'm working on drafting legislation to modify Indiana's handgun laws in conjunction with a member of the judicial comittee that adivses the legislature.

Joe

I wasn't aware that non-members of legislature could draft and propose legislation. That's almost a scary thought. I couldn't imagine if everyone did that all the time. Nothing would get done!

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Wrong again. Even if the evidence they discover is outside the scope of the warrant, they can still arrest you and they almost certainly will. The evidence just can't be admitted against you in court if it was illegally obtained and you object to its admission.

I'm not being argumentative, but I don't understand exactly what you are saying here.

If you get a search warrant for my house looking for a stolen gun, you enter my house and find a bag of pot on my kitchen table during your search. You will arrest me, but you cannot present the bag of pot as evidence against me in court if I object to it as being outside the scope of the warrant?

Would you please elaborate?