Sheriff's entered my home

They were having a slow night, so they decided to find vague cause to do anything that might lead to arresting people. They saw it as an excuse to enter your house, and while they were there look around to see if you have drugs out, or any manor of illegal activity.

I appreciate all the replies!

I admit, mistakes were made by leaving the house unsecure.

Many lessons learned.

Have even been locking the doors,
just a shame I have to lock them to keep the police out......

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by Kicking2bears
And then like every other law enforcement officer I've ever met they turned coward and spoke the first BS excuse that came to mind.

The vast majority of LEOs are good men & women who put their asses in the center sights of this country's true cowards, criminal bastards who would shoot you between the eyes for the $5 bill in your wallet and the iPod on your belt in a heartbeat. Sorry, I've seen enough of the world and heard enough people make broadly painted anti-police statements to recognize whose wearing the real yellow streak down their backs... and it isn't the guys wearing the badges.

Yes I think making up a BS excuse was extremely cowardly of them. On the flip side of the coin, entering a dwelling (possibly illegally) where you don't know who or what is inside could require courage.

However, I will always consider it cowardly for any human to make up an excuse rather than take responsability for their actions. Some people might see that as childish and imature instead of cowardly. So be it.

Yes, I'm sure there are decent LEO's out there, but I've met very few of them. And even those were radiating false bravado.

I think that all the rotten, good-for-nothing, power-tripping, cowardly (childish, imature) cops have given the few, good, honorable, dependable, morale cops a bad name. (Or else the good ones have earned themselves a nice desk job somewhere.) It's a pity.

reply to post by IamCorrect



Probable cause means you are probably doing something illegal and reasonable cause means they have enough
"Reasonable cause" ...to suspect either a hazardous and life threatening situation OR wrongdoing - for example a joint in plain sight or reasonable cause might even be the smell of propane and it does give them permission to force ably enter your house. Sad but true.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and un-particularized suspicion or 'hunch' " it must be based on "specific and articulate facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by IamCorrect

Probable cause means you are probably doing something illegal and reasonable cause means they have enough
"Reasonable cause"

It's not "reasonable cause." It's reasonable "suspicion." And the definition of probable cause is not that you are "probably doing something illegal."

...to suspect either a hazardous and life threatening situation OR wrongdoing - for example a joint in plain sight or reasonable cause might even be the smell of propane and it does give them permission to force ably enter your house. Sad but true.

No. That's wrong. And I've already explained that. If a policeman is walking down the sidewalk and looks through a window and sees an object that he believes is contraband, he does NOT automatically have the right to forcibly enter your house. What it 'would' do is contribute to probable cause to help procure a warrant to enter the home. An officer can only enter a home without a warrant where there is consent or exigent circumstances exist.

Similarly, in another post, "High Priestess", who claims to have gone to law school, writes:

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.

And in a later post, High Priestess writes:

i know what the "plain view doctrine" is - i went to law school, i thought i made that clear. what i asked was if YOU did.

Again, this is wrong. See:

Now suppose instead that police officers are on routine foot patrol when they observe a bale of marijuana through a window in Peter's home. Having seen the contraband in plain view, may they enter the home and seize it? The answer is emphatically no. The plain view doctrine permits seizure of an item while police are engaged in a lawful intrusion--- which in the case of entry into a private home means that (absent exigent circumstances) a warrant must be obtained. The observation that the police made through the window must be presented in a warrant affidavit to a magistrate who decides whether probable cause has been made out and, if so, what the scope of the search will be. [....] The plain view doctrine is triggered only 'after' the officers have otherwise lawfully entered the premises; it does not provide justification for the entry.

Source: Criminal Procedure: the constitution and the police, page 172-173

reply to post by IamCorrect


yeah, you're right. i should have clarified that in my initial statement. i was thinking more along the lines of the OP's situation, in which they were already claiming to have a legal reason to BE walking up on his property in the first place... and i should have clarified that. i can admit that, absolutely.

Now having said that, what is the point in addressing that so rudely towards me? i had already said my last post that i didn't mean to razz you or to argue with you, and i said so very politely. i extended the olive branch. you completely ignored that, never ONCE mentioned it, and instead went on to make smarmy remarks like "claims to have gone to law school" (which i did and this is what i have done for a living for 15 years now...) and by putting my screen name in parenthesis (which was completely done in sarcasm). are you in this conversation to contribute and to inform, or is it all about nit-picking and "winning" an "argument?"

By the way, you would actually have done better by simply citing cases - it is not law professors who write books that interpret laws and make them precedence, the words in their books are no more binding in the legal system than the words in Stephen King books - it is judges in courtrooms who interpret laws and judges and juries create precedence. rather than posting a link to a book written by individuals, you could have actually posted a link to the actual court case they were discussing on that page in the book. technically, that case is an Arizona case and really creates no mandatory precedence in any other state in the US; however, there IS a Supreme Court case that does, and THAT should have been the case you cited. Just an FYI for the next time you are playing "google attorney"

ETA: you are still dancing around and refusing to respond to any and all of the statements regarding the fact that the police will lie in the first place. in my scenario where the officer sees something through a window, you can bet your a$$ that cop is GOING to have a reason why he/she was there in the first place and how plain view applied in that case... especially by the time his/her report is prepared and sent to the prosecutor. it's really not that hard. and again, unless you have $$$ to fight it, you are SOL. if you don't think the police can and will fabricate justification, i urge you to do some research on things like "throw down weapons," etc. - if they can fabricate a reason to shoot you, they can darn well very easily fabricate a reason to enter your home without a warrant. you can google and post internet articles on the subject til the cows come home, but the bottom line is that exigent circumstances and plain view are totally exploitable legal loopholes for the police - and you saying "no, they can't..." on some internet forum is not going to and CLEARLY does not stop them from doing just that, as evidenced by the OP.

Man i skipped to the last page after reading the first, my bad, but seriously i would call just to make sure they were law enforcement and not the people performing the breakins themselves.

Officers are allowed to enter if they have probable cause.

A robbery in progress is probable cause; if they were sincere about it, then they were legitimately trying to protect you.

Originally posted by thermalburn
Officers are allowed to enter if they have probable cause.

A robbery in progress is probable cause; if they were sincere about it, then they were legitimately trying to protect you.

I don't see how walking unannounced would protect you from a thief? They had been having breakins in the local area..not rapes or murders.

Is walking in announced, and alerting a burglar...going to make that burglar do something more drastic..in an attempt to flee?

Why not hang out outside, and wait for him/her.. or knock very loudly at the front door and announce your presence..while your partner stands at the back open garage door..waiting for the culprit.

There just seems to be something"off" about this story , and the police procedure just doesn't seem to fit the scenerio.