The Cops show up at my house the other day..

[Fargo]

You are sadly mistaken.... they did answer the door & my friend told them everything was ok & that he & she did not need LEOs help, thats when they said "oh really, hows about we force the door the rest of the way open & cuff all the male subjects in the home make them sit on the floor while us LEOs tell you how its going to play out. And that is just what happened.... They did what ever they wanted to us in his home, no questions asked, no answers given....
As for you saying,"the LEO better have a warrant or he will be considered an intruder & may end up with a lawsuit on his hands"
Ya thats not going to work either...
Im sure most people on this forum will not agree with my opinion on this matter, however i am a realist, i have lived this situation before.

Im not saying i disagree with you not wanting LEO to do what ever they please even under a mistaken 911 call, i think its wrong. I trying to explain how ive seen it happen

So since it happened to you once it must be legal? C'mon now, one example does not the rule make.

There is a legal exception to the warrant requirement called an "exigent circumstance. It pertains to emergency situatations where it is not possible to get a warrant before significant harm is done. IIRC probable cause that a violent crime is in progress or that a person is seriously injured would be considered such a circumstance.

If this were not the case, you could beat your wife in front of a wide open window and no cop could enter until the judge got woken up, an affidavit was made and a warrant issued. Also, there could be a fresh blood trail leading up to your house from the auto accident that happened to you in front of it and they couldn't enter to render aid.

A 911 call by itself does not an exigent circumstance make. Now, if the caller says they are being beaten or that someone is injured, then it probably does. If it is accompanied by signs of forced entry or there is someone screaming inside, then it probably does.

Think about how things would work if this was not the case. You could get a 911 call off that someone was breaking into your house. The police show up but you have been overpowered and are being held by the gunman who forced his way in. For some odd reason, the criminal decides not to open the door when the cops knock. DO YOU REALLY WANT THE COPS TO HAVE TO CALL THE PROSECUTOR TO WAKE UP THE JUDGE SO THEY CAN SWEAR OUT A PCA AND HE CAN ISSUE A WARRANT; WHILE IN THE MEANTIME YOU AND YOUR KIDS ARE DEAD AND YOUR WIFE RAPED?

In the OP's example, they just came to his door to check that he was ok. That's standard practice on any incomplete 911 call. IF YOU WERE LYING THERE SHOT OR HELD AT GUNPOINT OR WERE BEING ASSAULTED OR RAPED, WOULD YOU REALLY PREFER THAT THE COPS NOT EVEN BOTHER TO COME KNOCK?

The posted attitudes of some on this verge on the absurd. A good friend of mine is an officer who responded to an incomplete 911 call a few years ago. As he walked up to the door, the wife-beater inside who had taken the phone from pulped-up wife decided to light him up with the .45 he had been using on his wife and came way too close to killing him. By many of your accounts, shame on him for even showing up. I say shame on you.

Joe

 

[CountryBoy19]

The posted attitudes of some on this verge on the absurd. A good friend of mine is an officer who responded to an incomplete 911 call a few years ago. As he walked up to the door, the wife-beater inside who had taken the phone from pulped-up wife decided to light him up with the .45 he had been using on his wife and came way too close to killing him. By many of your accounts, shame on him for even showing up. I say shame on you.

Joe

We are not saying that. What we're saying is that just because they claim they got a call, they're not entitled to enter. I know that is a fine line, and its a judgment call on their part, but that line is very thin. It could easily turn into police claiming they got a call, just so they can get in your home to look around while ensuring everything is ok. I think those talking about this are just warning caution on people to be vigilent of their rights, so as not to lose them.

 

[samot]

So since it happened to you once it must be legal? C'mon now, one example does not the rule make.
Never said it was legal !!!
There is a legal exception to the warrant requirement called an "exigent circumstance. It pertains to emergency situatations where it is not possible to get a warrant before significant harm is done. IIRC probable cause that a violent crime is in progress or that a person is seriously injured would be considered such a circumstance.

If this were not the case, you could beat your wife in front of a wide open window and no cop could enter until the judge got woken up, an affidavit was made and a warrant issued. Also, there could be a fresh blood trail leading up to your house from the auto accident that happened to you in front of it and they couldn't enter to render aid.

A 911 call by itself does not an exigent circumstance make. Now, if the caller says they are being beaten or that someone is injured, then it probably does. If it is accompanied by signs of forced entry or there is someone screaming inside, then it probably does.

Think about how things would work if this was not the case. You could get a 911 call off that someone was breaking into your house. The police show up but you have been overpowered and are being held by the gunman who forced his way in. For some odd reason, the criminal decides not to open the door when the cops knock. DO YOU REALLY WANT THE COPS TO HAVE TO CALL THE PROSECUTOR TO WAKE UP THE JUDGE SO THEY CAN SWEAR OUT A PCA AND HE CAN ISSUE A WARRANT; WHILE IN THE MEANTIME YOU AND YOUR KIDS ARE DEAD AND YOUR WIFE RAPED?
I see both sides there JOE, You speak as if you are the spokesman for all people, not everyone wants or needs "help" from the cops

In the OP's example, they just came to his door to check that he was ok .
This is rare & influenced by the fact the LEOs couldnt penpoint the call
That's standard practice on any incomplete 911 call. IF YOU WERE LYING THERE SHOT OR HELD AT GUNPOINT OR WERE BEING ASSAULTED OR RAPED, WOULD YOU REALLY PREFER THAT THE COPS NOT EVEN BOTHER TO COME KNOCK? As a matter of fact i would prefer the cops not bother, however WE do not have that option. You deal with situations in your home your way, i will deal with mine MY WAY !

The posted attitudes of some on this verge on the absurd. A good friend of mine is an officer who responded to an incomplete 911 call a few years ago. As he walked up to the door, the wife-beater inside who had taken the phone from pulped-up wife decided to light him up with the .45 he had been using on his wife and came way too close to killing him. By many of your accounts, shame on him for even showing up. I say shame on you.

Joe

Like i said in earlier post"most wont agree with my opinion on this matter" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 35 years i have never had to have a police officers help.
Sorry if i offended you, or if my absurd attitude is not to your standard.

 

[samot]

We are not saying that. What we're saying is that just because they claim they got a call, they're not entitled to enter. I know that is a fine line, and its a judgment call on their part, but that line is very thin. It could easily turn into police claiming they got a call, just so they can get in your home to look around while ensuring everything is ok. I think those talking about this are just warning caution on people to be vigilent of their rights, so as not to lose them.

+10000

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Personally, I don't think the other comment started it. While it may have been slightly out of line, it was also a valid position because "fishing" may have been exactly what they were doing, whether it was for good reason or not.

But PS just had to step in and make a wise*** comment about it.

Actually I wasn't referring to the fishing comment, I was talking about Mettles response to PSs joke.

But if they forced their way in on the premise that it was a 911 call and there may be somebody hurt, tied up or whatever they suspect, would things such as drugs or other illegal things be cause for arrest? They gained entry into a house without a warrant. Take the 911 call out of the situation and the cops go into a house without a warrant or permission, anything they find is inadmissable in court.

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.

This is where I'm torn, if a LEO pulls over someone for a burnt out light should they ignore the guy in the backseat snorting blow off the dead hookers belly? Or even the roach in the ashtray? It wasn't the reason for the stop after all. Take the burned out light out of the equation.

Or in your scenario if they should ignore the bag of weed, should they also ignore the 27 illegals making meth in the basement? How about the 27 muslims making explosive vests and studying flying manuals and govt office blue prints?

That is how I took the post, but I guess some people immediately thought it was cop-bashing.

I thought you meant "fishing" for clues as to where the call came from, or if anybody needed help.

Usually "fishing" is used to describe LEOs looking for things other than the original stop/call etc. Such as being pulled over for a burned out light and the officer asking where your comeing from/going too/why/asking to search your car etc. Not trying to find clues for the original stop. Which is frowned upon by quite a few people on this board. (myself included)

 

[CountryBoy19]

Actually I wasn't referring to the fishing comment, I was talking about Mettles response to PSs joke.

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about his "fishing" comment prior to PS's comment. Either way, I took PS's comment as "come on tough guy, bring it on" because its not the first time he's done something like this.

Usually "fishing" is used to describe LEOs looking for things other than the original stop/call etc. Such as being pulled over for a burned out light and the officer asking where your comeing from/going too/why/asking to search your car etc. Not trying to find clues for the original stop. Which is frowned upon by quite a few people on this board. (myself included)

Yes, I can see that, but they could also be "fishing" for a legitimate cause. Yes, they're harassing people, but they're only trying to get a clue to where the call came from. In that case, I think it is a good fishing, even though some people may feel harassed.

 

[public servant]

Either way, I took PS's comment as "come on tough guy, bring it on" because its not the first time he's done something like this.

Well then let me assure you...that you took it the wrong way. I won't jack the OP's thread any more than my original comment already has...because frankly...it was far from meant to become the discussion of his thread.

To the OP...sorry about that. My bad. I am however very glad that neither you or your family was in need of assistance.

 

[groovatron]

You are sadly mistaken.... they did answer the door & my friend told them everything was ok & that he & she did not need LEOs help, thats when they said "oh really, hows about we force the door the rest of the way open & cuff all the male subjects in the home make them sit on the floor while us LEOs tell you how its going to play out. And that is just what happened.... They did what ever they wanted to us in his home, no questions asked, no answers given....
As for you saying,"the LEO better have a warrant or he will be considered an intruder & may end up with a lawsuit on his hands"
Ya thats not going to work either...
Im sure most people on this forum will not agree with my opinion on this matter, however i am a realist, i have lived this situation before.

Im not saying i disagree with you not wanting LEO to do what ever they please even under a mistaken 911 call, i think its wrong. I trying to explain how ive seen it happen

yeah, but the girl called the cops. If a guy answers the door and says everything is all good, how are they supposed to know for sure. She could be laying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. Not only that, but a domestic dispute that escalates to a 911 call deserves this treatment. The call to 911 made it evident that they could not handle their own problems. I don't see how the cops overreacted in this case.

 

[Fargo]

Like i said in earlier post"most wont agree with my opinion on this matter" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 35 years i have never had to have a police officers help.
Sorry if i offended you, or if my absurd attitude is not to your standard.

If that really is your attitude, maybe you should lobby to have the law changed so that the police can't try to respond to incomplete 911 calls. Or maybe you should get rid of your phone and ban anyone from bringing one on your property. That should help you avoid those pesky 911 calls. G'luck with that!

 

[hornadylnl]

I think it's a good thing to check up on incomplete 911 calls but there is a huge difference between butt dialing and the dispatcher hearing your conversation about the Colts game then hearing a scream, commotion, etc. In the case of the butt dialer talking about the Colts game, I'm still not against the officers doing a follow up but they should obviously practice discretion. Knock on the door and ask if everything is ok and explain the call. Tell them not to butt dial 911 next time you big dummy.

In the case of the blood curdling scream, that is a no brainer as there is definite probable cause.

But I think contraband found in the case of an incomplete 911 call should not be admissable in court. Someone brought up the point that an officer probably isn't going to ignore a bag of dope. Any officer with a badge knows that anything seized without a warrant is inadmissable in court. If the courts were to determine that contraband found during a specific incomplete 911 call were inadmissable, there would be no need for the officer to file a charge.

Pulling a guy over for a burnt out light and finding other crimes in the process is one thing. What I'm talking about is a "bored" officer seeing a car he wants to stop and then "finds" a reason to pull them over. In that case, the "probable cause" of the tail light was merely a ruse to make the stop. I believe that is a clear abuse of the spirit of the 4th amendment. Some time ago, a member here said they were pulled over for a burnt out license plate light. At the end of the stop, the officer told him it wasn't burnt out but was pretty dim. To me, that is pure abuse of the law.

 

[samot]

yeah, but the girl called the cops. If a guy answers the door and says everything is all good, how are they supposed to know for sure. She could be laying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. Not only that, but a domestic dispute that escalates to a 911 call deserves this treatment. The call to 911 made it evident that they could not handle their own problems. I don't see how the cops overreacted in this case.

Yes Sir, I agree, up until the point where they decided to handcuff me.. It was a crappy situation. I was at the wrong place @ the wrong time. I just wished it could have been handled a little differently.
they literally stood there brow beating us, telling us what power they had over us, & how miserable they could make our lives, instead of adressing the domestic dispute.
Like i say, wrong place wrong time

 

[samot]

If that really is your attitude, maybe you should lobby to have the law changed so that the police can't try to respond to incomplete 911 calls. Or maybe you should get rid of your phone and ban anyone from bringing one on your property. That should help you avoid those pesky 911 calls. G'luck with that!

Thanks Buddy, Positive Rep sent your way

 

[Fargo]

But I think contraband found in the case of an incomplete 911 call should not be admissable in court. Someone brought up the point that an officer probably isn't going to ignore a bag of dope. Any officer with a badge knows that anything seized without a warrant is inadmissable in court. If the courts were to determine that contraband found during a specific incomplete 911 call were inadmissable, there would be no need for the officer to file a charge.

I understand your concern, but what happens when that evidence discovered after the 911 call is the body of your child who was abducted and murdered? With it automatically inadmissible, you do realize that his/her murderer will almost undoubtably go free? I would be careful about trying to fix your concerns with the war on drugs by making certain types of evidence inadmissible. You might be better served trying to get the war on drugs fixed.

Pulling a guy over for a burnt out light and finding other crimes in the process is one thing. What I'm talking about is a "bored" officer seeing a car he wants to stop and then "finds" a reason to pull them over. In that case, the "probable cause" of the tail light was merely a ruse to make the stop. I believe that is a clear abuse of the spirit of the 4th amendment. Some time ago, a member here said they were pulled over for a burnt out license plate light. At the end of the stop, the officer told him it wasn't burnt out but was pretty dim. To me, that is pure abuse of the law.

In Indiana, it doesn't matter whether the light is out or whether it is dim. All that matters is whether or not the plate can be read from the distance listed in the statute. If you do not like that, I suggest you contact your state rep.

Best,

Joe

 

[hornadylnl]

I understand your concern, but what happens when that evidence discovered after the 911 call is the body of your child who was abducted and murdered? With it automatically inadmissible, you do realize that his/her murderer will almost undoubtably go free? I would be careful about trying to fix your concerns with the war on drugs by making certain types of evidence inadmissible. You might be better served trying to get the war on drugs fixed.



In Indiana, it doesn't matter whether the light is out or whether it is dim. All that matters is whether or not the plate can be read from the distance listed in the statute. If you do not like that, I suggest you contact your state rep.

Best,

Joe

It would seem pretty obvious that the body of a child found during the 911 call follow up would pertain to the purpose of the follow up. The pot plant sitting in the corner doesn't pertain to the safety of those in the resident. I bring up drugs because they are an easy example. Drugs are not the only illegal thing one can possess.

I understand that an improperly lit license plate is against Indiana law and I'm not arguing that fact. I also understand the courts have said that using that as an excuse to make a stop you planned to already make but just need pc is ok as well. But what I'm arguing is that anyone who values our constitution should know that type of stop goes against the spirit of the 4th amendment and what our forefathers meant when they drafted it. If I ever became a police officer, I'd practice discretion and not use that tactic. I only wish more would do the same.

 

[Benny]

It would seem pretty obvious that the body of a child found during the 911 call follow up would pertain to the purpose of the follow up. The pot plant sitting in the corner doesn't pertain to the safety of those in the resident. I bring up drugs because they are an easy example. Drugs are not the only illegal thing one can possess.

I understand that an improperly lit license plate is against Indiana law and I'm not arguing that fact. I also understand the courts have said that using that as an excuse to make a stop you planned to already make but just need pc is ok as well. But what I'm arguing is that anyone who values our constitution should know that type of stop goes against the spirit of the 4th amendment and what our forefathers meant when they drafted it. If I ever became a police officer, I'd practice discretion and not use that tactic. I only wish more would do the same.

Most do, unfortunately you only hear about the ones that don't.

 

[hornadylnl]

Most do, unfortunately you only hear about the ones that don't.

And the ones that do have 110% of my respect.

 

[bigus_D]

anti-thread jack link: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/72841-where_is_the_line.html

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

There are only two ways to trace a radio source. Either by triangulation (requiring at least two towers, three if you want to pinpoint) or by having the source transmit GPS coordinates. If the phone has a GPS on it, then it may automatically send its coordinates when you dial 911. If it doesn't have a GPS, then unless your phone is within range of multiple towers, I don't see how they could pinpoint it to within, say, 30 yards. A single tower will give them a circular area around 5 miles in diameter. The tower can report signal strength, which would narrow it down to a probable distance from the tower, but still results in a circle.

snopes.com: Cell Phone Location Feature

Well, topography might narrow it down some too, wouldn't it?

I have no idea, but say there's a river cutting a swath through, say, 5 to 9 o'clock positions with regard to epicenter (one cell tower) or there's some obstructive landscape (oh, a mountain), signal strength might give a slightly more confined area than a true circle, wouldn't it? For instance, if the signal strength indicates - and this is a long shot - that the signal is 300-400 yards away in some direction, and if the river at 5 through 9 o'clock is occupying that position at that distance, wouldn't it effectively rule that area out, and narrow it to, say, 10 through 4 o'clock positions at that range?

Like I said, I have no idea, but it seems as though you know a lot on this, and I've been curious about possible triangulation of signal using only one or two cell towers for ages. Personal paranoia/interest, I guess.

 

[Anonymous]

So what y'all are saying is, it was probably just a mix up in the phone system?

It's all good! Thanks again, I really do appreciate the responses and I have learned a few things as well!

 

[CountryBoy19]

Well, topography might narrow it down some too, wouldn't it?

I have no idea, but say there's a river cutting a swath through, say, 5 to 9 o'clock positions with regard to epicenter (one cell tower) or there's some obstructive landscape (oh, a mountain), signal strength might give a slightly more confined area than a true circle, wouldn't it? For instance, if the signal strength indicates - and this is a long shot - that the signal is 300-400 yards away in some direction, and if the river at 5 through 9 o'clock is occupying that position at that distance, wouldn't it effectively rule that area out, and narrow it to, say, 10 through 4 o'clock positions at that range?

Like I said, I have no idea, but it seems as though you know a lot on this, and I've been curious about possible triangulation of signal using only one or two cell towers for ages. Personal paranoia/interest, I guess.

The call could've come from somebody in a boat on the river.

So really, you couldn't truly rule out those areas. You could focus more attention on areas that are more likely, but not rule them out.