It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sheriff's entered my home

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
My garage door is broke and doesn't shut all the way and has been for a long time and I really hope that a couple of the Barney cops that we have around where I live don't ever make the mistake of entering my home at 4 am, in violation of my 4th amendment, citing their "probable cause" because it wouldn't turn out good.

I'm not saying that I would necessarily harm them, but as I see it LEO or not they are tresspassing, especially if they have no warrant and I would definately give them a piece of my mind and tell them what a couple of rookies they are. In return I'm sure they would start asking me why I was so upset and then accuse me of having an anger problem or some other BS. I am well aware of my rights as a citizen and will fight to the death to uphold and protect those rights. I sleep with a Ruger Mini 30 within reach of my bed and there are always 3 or 4 loaded guns sitting somewhere within my home. That would be reason enough for them to get their panties in a wad and start questioning me as to why I am expressing my 2nd amendment and get suspicious of me.

A previous poster already stated that LEO doesn't like when people aren't afraid of them and that is definately true. They really don't like it when you start quoting laws and rights to them, it makes them feel inferior and they usually take it as an insult. The police have a "I am the law so I'm right even if I'm wrong" attitude and that doesn't go over well with me, especially when they are illegally on my property.

I am a law abiding citizen that comes from a long line of law enforcement, one of those being Pat Garret of Billy The Kid fame but todays law enforcement is way off base most of the time when it comes to actually protecting the rights of the citizens. They trample the rights of the people all in the name of enforcing the law, and if you talk back to them or question their motives they get really p*ssed.

Thomas Jefferson once said something that has always stuck in my mind when dealing with laws and law enforcement: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

This is very true in todays society as the laws that are becoming ever-increasing and intrusive are for the most part only meant to serve the government and protect their interests at the expense of the rights of the citizen.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
It likely is true, that an unlocked or visibly open door, would legally constitute probable cause. Whether or not they were permitted to enter the house uninvited is probably a matter of local jurisdiction; but they did not harm you, and apparently went by the book in every other respect.

Truthfully if it were me, when I think about it, if I was going to get in touch with their supervisor at all, it would probably be to commend their conduct. With the number of cops running around today engaging in brutality, if you have rookies who are at least attempting to do the right thing, then I think that deserves a little recognition, and positive reinforcement.

As someone else has said, I do not believe that all police officers are psychopathic. Given what I know of psychopathic demographics in general, I would not expect the number to be higher than 25% of the overall LEO population. I only feel resentment towards them if they do the wrong thing; but if they perform altruistically, with moderation, and respect for both sides of the law, then I am actually grateful for their presence.

As a somewhat related point, in terms of the recent controversy regarding the recording of police, I am inclined to believe that it is only psychopathic or corrupt officers who would be likely to have problems with you doing that, because they fear exposure. A police officer who is law abiding, and committed to working by the book, should have nothing to fear. If they did express concern to me about it, I would tell them that I was doing it for their protection as well; that if there was ever an issue in court, it would be undeniable that they also behaved honourably.
edit on 5-9-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
It likely is true, that an unlocked or visibly open door, would legally constitute probable cause.


No. An unlocked door at a residence does not give probable cause. Neither does an open door.



Whether or not they were permitted to enter the house uninvited is probably a matter of local jurisdiction;


No, it's not. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure originate with the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not state law.


edit on 5-9-2011 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
A previous poster already stated that LEO doesn't like when people aren't afraid of them and that is definately true. They really don't like it when you start quoting laws and rights to them, it makes them feel inferior and they usually take it as an insult. The police have a "I am the law so I'm right even if I'm wrong" attitude and that doesn't go over well with me, especially when they are illegally on my property.


If I can empathise with the police a little here, I think the reason why they don't respond well to assertiveness, is because it causes them to feel extremely restricted in how they can respond. Before anyone accuses me of this, no, I don't feel that they should be free to engage in brutal or illegal behaviour at all; but I have read recently that in some areas of London for example, police do not like going there at all, because leftist political correctness concerning different ethnic groups, causes them to feel that they will get into trouble even if they legitimately arrest a member of a minority who is committing a crime.

Being aware of your rights is something that I of course applaud; but quoting legislation that is not immediately relevant to the situation at hand, is likely to result in an escalation of tension. This is becuase, particularly in the case of a younger or less experienced officer, the officer in question may actually have less intimate knowledge of the law than you yourself.

Assuming that that is the case, he will likely then start to feel intimidated and confused; and an intimidated and confused person with a gun, is not someone who you want to be around.
edit on 5-9-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. An unlocked door at a residence does not give probable cause. Neither does an open door.


Earlier in the evening, when other people are potentially present, I would agree with you. However, at four in the morning, in a largely deserted area, I would be willing to concede that the police may have a defensible case.


No, it's not. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure originate with the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not state law.


They may have been guilty of trespass, and possibly even unreasonable search, (although again, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in this specific case) but they were not guilty of seizure.

I will agree with you that standing at the door, and raising their voice to attempt to communicate with potential occupants would have been much more legally appropriate, not to mention safer for all concerned; so they arguably are guilty of trespass. Someone walking randomly into a house in some states, (such as Texas) is liable to get themselves shot; so it is advisable for police to avoid doing that for their own protection, as much as anyone else's.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
What would you think, hypothetically, if you did happened to be awake when they entered, but you did not hear them identify themselves as sherrifs, and you had a gun for protection, and accidentally shot one of them because all you saw/heard you two unidentified men, in your house, at 4am?

That is a very realistic scenario, if these two clowns are creatures of habit. I didn't speculate either, on whether or not they open fire, and kill you, because you shot at an unidentified intruder. It's happened before.
edit on 5-9-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee
Probable Cause is the way in which they legally entered your home.


No, probable cause does not give police the right to enter a person's home or garage. They would need permission from a resident or a warrant approved by a judge or magistrate based on probable cause to enter. An open door to a home or garage does not give probable cause, anyway. It's not direct evidence of a crime.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
MoosKept240, you are on the watch list, you are a conspiracy forum member, after all...




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by MoosKept240
 


Why are they not in fresh graves, and have their pictures up on the wall at the sheriff's office?

/TOA


I love all of you "revolutionaries" always bitching that someone else isn't firing the first shot. STFU.

--



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysticPearl
What would you think, hypothetically, if you did happened to be awake when they entered, but you did not hear them identify themselves as sherrifs, and you had a gun for protection, and accidentally shot one of them because all you saw/heard you two unidentified men, in your house, at 4am?


One of the biggest problems with America as a culture, is the degree to which Americans tend to feel justified in resorting to immoderate or excessive use of force. This manifests as much among civilians as it does among police.

So if, for example, a police officer entered the house, if I was going to shoot them at all, I would consider the appropriate course of action, to do so in a disabling rather than lethal manner; in the leg, for example. I think it is disturbing that the average American who would consider themselves entitled to shoot, would apparently consider themselves justified in attempting to cause death, rather than attempting to non-lethally neutralise the threat.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by MysticPearl
What would you think, hypothetically, if you did happened to be awake when they entered, but you did not hear them identify themselves as sherrifs, and you had a gun for protection, and accidentally shot one of them because all you saw/heard you two unidentified men, in your house, at 4am?


One of the biggest problems with America as a culture, is the degree to which Americans tend to feel justified in resorting to immoderate or excessive use of force. This manifests as much among civilians as it does among police.

So if, for example, a police officer entered the house, if I was going to shoot them at all, I would consider the appropriate course of action, to do so in a disabling rather than lethal manner; in the leg, for example. I think it is disturbing that the average American who would consider themselves entitled to shoot, would apparently consider themselves justified in attempting to cause death, rather than attempting to non-lethally neutralise the threat.

I'd shoot to hurt also, not to kill. I never mentioned anything about shoot to kill. But even if you shoot a sherriff in the leg by accident, because you thought he was an intruder, his partner is most likely unloading on you. So while you or I may shoot to disable, in this scenario, where they enter without identifying themselves, it doesn't really matter if you shoot to disable or not, because you'll likely end up dead. That's the point. Sherriffs, or anyone else entering a house at 4am, without identifying themselves, is greatly increasing the probability someones will get either hurt or killed.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by IamCorrect
No. An unlocked door at a residence does not give probable cause. Neither does an open door.


Earlier in the evening, when other people are potentially present, I would agree with you. However, at four in the morning, in a largely deserted area, I would be willing to concede that the police may have a defensible case.


Nope. Police need a warrant based on probable cause to enter a home or garage unless they have permission or exigent circumstances exist. And an open door to a home or garage is not direct evidence of a crime, and it's not enough for probable cause to seek a warrant. At best, depending on the exact circumstances of a hypothetical scenario, it would be reasonable suspicion, and reasonable suspicion is not enough for a warrant. Reasonable suspicion may justify their pulling in to someone's driveway and shining their flashlights around for a minute and knocking if they were concerned. In no event would it allow entry.




No, it's not. Rights against unreasonable search and seizure originate with the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not state law.


They may have been guilty of trespass, and possibly even unreasonable search, (although again, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in this specific case) but they were not guilty of seizure.


I never said a seizure occurred. I was simply explaining that the right originates with the 4th amendment, which covers unreasonable search and seizure.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Wanted to get into law enforcement and have a degree in criminal justice. Don't use it, don't remember much but I hope his helps.


In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]


This is essentially a free pass. If police suspect something is happening they can enter a home, business etc. without a warrant. As the external text states, there is no real definition and police operating under this will usually have very good cause as they can be sued or disciplined if they are using poor discretion.

An example would be hearing a woman screaming for help from a private residence. In an instance like this there is no time to procure a warrant, and any time lost could potentially result in the death or serious injury of a citizen. Just seeing an open door would not give police cause to enter a dwelling without permission in my opinion. Granted if there was some crazed maniac known to be running around in the area things could be different.

Hope that helps.

Exigent Circumstances

This is a weird one in that without the ability to enter when lacking a warrant people are put at greater risk. On the flip side, it is fairly easy for a la enforcement official to claim exigent circumstances to enter a property/area that they are merely slightly suspicious of.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
So you had you're garage door open and you're side door open as well?


They would have walked up to the open door and asked if anyone in and requested permission to enter. Apon hearing nothing in reply (to be expected either if there were burgalars or you were assleep) they would have entered to investigate.


Why did you leave you're garage door and house door open anyway? You want to be a victim of burglary? Or hoping someone tries so you can get a bit of action?


I dont like cops either, but the OP seems to have "DERP" tattooed to his head.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by IamCorrect
 


actually, i am not incorrect. if a door appears to be pried open or smashed in they MAY very much so enter your residence to ensure that no one is injured. they do have to announce themselves and clearly identify themselves as a police officer as they are entering. all they have to have is a reasonable suspicion that a crime is currently being committed. a kicked in or pried open door (albeit, the garage door is questionable - but say, if it were your front door...) is plenty reasonable suspicion. it is your word against theirs later in court as to whether they felt that a life was in danger. and that, my friend, can qualify as "exigent circumstances" - they may NOT, however, start digging through drawers or cabinets, etc... they may only secure the premises and make sure that no one is injured, etc. keeping someone from destroying evidence also falls under "exigent circumstances."

also, if an officer is walking past your place and can clearly see in the window that a crime is being committed, such as you are sitting there doing drugs in "plain view," on your own couch in your own home, they may enter immediately, without a warrant.

further, the Patriot Act negates most of your constitutional rights altogether...

i spent half of my career working Civil Rights cases for the City of Dallas (which, of course, includes the Dallas Police Department) - i have, hands on, worked on cases where individuals have tried to sue the city for things i listed above.... to no avail. just sayin. i realize that you have clearly read up on the subject... but i am telling you that what you read and the actual application of things in a court of law may not always pan out the same.

ETA: just noticed that Domo essentially stated the same prior to my/this reply. sorry for being redundant, Domo!

edit on 5-9-2011 by highpriestess because: (no reason given)


ETA again: IAMCORRECT: you should be VERY careful giving out legal advice, especially on this subject. there IS a reason why giving out legal advice without a license to practice law is called "unauthorized practice of law" and is actually a crime. do you have a state bar number? or at the very least a J.D.? i assure you that on the scene, the police DO NOT care about you spewing your knowledge of the Constitution. it is NOT going to stop them. they KNOW what they can and can't do and what they need to say later in order to justify it. i promise you. to state here so matter-of-factly that they can NOT do this or that is very wrong. they can do whatever they wish and you have no choice but to comply - if you do not comply, they will use physical force. the typical police response when a person is going on and on about their constitutional rights is "you can explain that to the judge" - and at that point it becomes your word against theirs. ANY good attorney would advise you to cooperate, but refuse to answer any questions, and request to speak to your attorney - most legal issues are sorted out later amongst DA's and attorneys, and NOT by the police at the scene.
edit on 5-9-2011 by highpriestess because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Sounds fishy to me...

They could have been just genuine cops that thought they would take the extraordinary measure of entering your home, at 4am without invitation - placing their own safety potentially at risk (Guns for protection anyone?).
All because they were concerned for your safety....

Yeah that is a possibility but if I was going to chose a scenario I think more likely:
- Humanity is full of corruption
- Some of that corruption exists within the police force
- One of Humanities oldest crimes is stealing - Heck Adam pretty much made it the crime when he stole that apple.
- If one of those corrupt officers see an opportunity to steal something they know they have a high chance of getting away with it primarily because they have the perfect excuse for being there.

Follow up with the station and ask why they entered your home without a warrant - you never know they may have been waiting for that cop to slip up again.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
Wanted to get into law enforcement and have a degree in criminal justice. Don't use it, don't remember much but I hope his helps.


In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]


This is essentially a free pass.


No, it's not essentially a free pass. It's quite the opposite. Does everything to you constitute "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence?" The courts construe this vary narrowly. Common examples are entries of burning buildings for rescues, hot pursuit of a suspect who just ran inside a home during a chase, or certain cases of likely imminent destruction of evidence of a crime if police don't enter immediately.



If police suspect something is happening they can enter a home, business etc. without a warrant.


No, usually not. Only where exigent circumstances exist, or they have a warrant or permission to enter. In most cases where police suspect "something is happening" it will not give rise to exigent circumstances. As a matter of fact, "suspecting something is happening" isn't enough for a warrant, either. Probable cause has to exist.

With a business as you mentioned, of course they can walk into Dunkin' Donuts. Dunkin' Donuts would go out of business if they didn't. But that doesn't mean they can walk into the manager's office whenever they want.



As the external text states, there is no real definition and police operating under this will usually have very good cause as they can be sued or disciplined if they are using poor discretion.


What constitutes exigent circumstances is defined by case law. There is no bright line rule. But the circumstances are very limited.



An example would be hearing a woman screaming for help from a private residence. In an instance like this there is no time to procure a warrant, and any time lost could potentially result in the death or serious injury of a citizen. Just seeing an open door would not give police cause to enter a dwelling without permission in my opinion. Granted if there was some crazed maniac known to be running around in the area things could be different.


This is all true, except that they would need to witness a suspect going into a particular home in order to enter without permission. If they're chasing a suspect on foot and know he ran down an isolated side street and concluded he must have entered one of four houses but don't know which one, that doesn't give them exigent circumstances to enter each of the four houses.



This is a weird one in that without the ability to enter when lacking a warrant people are put at greater risk. On the flip side, it is fairly easy for a la enforcement official to claim exigent circumstances to enter a property/area that they are merely slightly suspicious of.


No. Slight suspicion does not give rise to exigent circumstances. Not at all. Slight suspicion doesn't even allow them to procure a warrant let alone enter without one.

And from a prosecutorial standpoint:

Police sometimes enter believing they have exigent circumstances, but that doesn't mean their entry was legal or that exigent circumstances actually existed. If a criminal prosecution follows after police enter and discover something illegal inside the home (exigent circumstances without a warrant), the court will make a ruling as to whether exigent circumstances actually existed or not based on arguments of counsel for the prosecution and defense, such as during an evidence suppression hearing. The court will make its ruling based on case law. As a matter of fact, if evidence is illegally obtained, in many cases additional evidence which is found as a result of the original illegal seizure will also be found inadmissible via the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

edit on 5-9-2011 by IamCorrect because: finished editing grammar of post



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
Wanted to get into law enforcement and have a degree in criminal justice. Don't use it, don't remember much but I hope his helps.


In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means: An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]


This is essentially a free pass. If police suspect something is happening they can enter a home, business etc. without a warrant. As the external text states, there is no real definition and police operating under this will usually have very good cause as they can be sued or disciplined if they are using poor discretion.

An example would be hearing a woman screaming for help from a private residence. In an instance like this there is no time to procure a warrant, and any time lost could potentially result in the death or serious injury of a citizen. Just seeing an open door would not give police cause to enter a dwelling without permission in my opinion. Granted if there was some crazed maniac known to be running around in the area things could be different.

Hope that helps.

Exigent Circumstances

This is a weird one in that without the ability to enter when lacking a warrant people are put at greater risk. On the flip side, it is fairly easy for a la enforcement official to claim exigent circumstances to enter a property/area that they are merely slightly suspicious of.


The problem with this is that the law was purposefully written in a manner that intentionally circumvents the 4th amendment. Under this any officer can enter any where they want and make up pretty much any reason and under the application of the law the way it is written they would be justified in doing so.

In Fl where I live we have what is called the "stop and frisk law" that gives law enforcement the ability to stop anyone that is outside of the protection of their home and search them for any reason as long as the officer has probable cause to think they committed a crime or that is engaged in suspicious activity. This law is abused everyday by cops that say they smelled marijuana or the person fit the description of a suspect. I have been stopped 2 times while walking down the side walk on my way to the corner market at night and when I asked why they stopped me they said that it was suspicious of me to be walking at 10pm.

The fact is that our protections under the fourth amendment are dead and gone.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

The problem with this is that the law was purposefully written in a manner that intentionally circumvents the 4th amendment. Under this any officer can enter any where they want and make up pretty much any reason and under the application of the law the way it is written they would be justified in doing so.


you are absolutely correct. the assumption is that they are being honest and telling the truth because they are "officers of the court." -- what others who are posting here fail to mention is that there is usually more than one officer involved and each one is a witness who corroborates the other's story. despite what others are trying to say here, they get away with A LOT of crap that is pretty much unconstitutional. some people get lawyers and fight, and sometimes they win... but what they bank on are the poor, broke individuals who can't afford an attorney, who can't afford to fight it, and who take a plea deal. that's the bottom line. cops push all kinds of constitutional boundaries, using leal loopholes such as this... it doesn't always pan out for them in court, but more often than not, it does.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect

And from a prosecutorial standpoint:


are you a prosecutor or district attorney? i am unclear on this, you seem as though you are speaking as if you are giving your standpoint... or is this cut and pasted from elsewhere? just looking for clarification on this...




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join