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.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Doesnt impress me - most cops i've met don't actually understand how the law works beyond what they need to know to get the average jo to comply.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Originally posted by byteshertz
You are one of those cop's that just likes the sound of his own voice is all im seeing. It is not tresspassing unless you are asked to leave. What you are saying is if I let you on my property and you say something I don't like I can have you arrested for breaking the law.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Ummmm no mr cop Thats just stupid.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Well Mr Cop, I don't think anyone is going to be too worried about 'loosing' anything but their right to freedom of speech. Please explain how this is any different from you coming to my house and then saying something I don't like. I can have you arrested if you don't leave when I ask, but anything you say is not illegal.
Originally posted by Torgo
reply to post by Xcathdra
Forgive me, but with your support of Cheney and with such statements as, "LOL this is just to perfect... So once again, the left is going to hide behind the right, while the right does the job when it comes to taking a stand on something." you can see why I might be a bit confused.
Seriously though, I'd love to hear what you have to say about Rove.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Torgo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by byteshertz
Mr cop's taking a while... reading though his training manual
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Asktheanimals
Your title doesnt frighten me.. I take you on as well Mr. Mod j/k
Serious question though for you guys on the war crimes bit.
Please explain to me how they commited war crimes. Serious question.
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Aggie Man
I dont know. I think the price of admission would be worth getting the press. Thats a lot of bang for your buck.
Yeah, you are right. They got a damn good bit for their money....a barely audible comment, followed by ....the continuation of the ceremony. Money well spent!
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.
I love it.. when confronted and proven wrong, you shift the conversation.
Ok pay attention because your going to be given some more laws.
Article 2 Section 2 of the Us Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war
The War powers Act of 1973 scaled down the ability of the Commander in Chief to fight a undeclared war by requireing congressioanl approval for military actions, IE hostilities.
Now that you have the basic, Congress does not have to declare war to authorize military use of force.
September 18th, 2001 - Public Law 107 - 40 - Authorization for Use of Military Force - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
October 16th, 2002 - Public Law 107 - 243 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
UN Charter - Article 51 - Self defense
UN Resolutions dealing with Iraq - Begining with the first gulf war
1990 -
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.
2002 -
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Iraqs failure to comply with all UN Resolutions that were in place after the first gulf war placed them in breach. Use of force was allowed based on UN Charter - Article VII Breach of Peace.
The war in Afghanistan was never "authorized" by the UN, but it did not have to be since the US invoked Article VII Section 51 of the UN Charter in addition to NATO invoking our self defense articles.
You can take it upon yourself if you want to learn and read through all that. If you dont want to thats fine, but you need to stop making claims you cant back up.
Originally posted by byteshertz
You are one of those cop's that just likes the sound of his own voice is all im seeing. It is not tresspassing unless you are asked to leave. What you are saying is if I let you on my property and you say something I don't like I can have you arrested for breaking the law.
No, I am one of those cops who is telling you that your knwoledge of the law is wrong, and I do it in hopes you might actually open your eyes, swallow your pride, and learn to avoid trouble.
Tresspassing as an infraction - no notification required to be cited for tresspassing. Tresspassing as a misdameanor - Told to leave and you refuse.
Causing such a commotion that causes an affront to others - Disturbing the Peace
Telling a cop you dont have to leave because you were never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave - ignoring a lawful command.
Contining to argue with the officer - Resisting an arrest
Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore what people are trying to tell you in hopes you avoid these pitfalls
- Priceless
Originally posted by byteshertz
Ummmm no mr cop Thats just stupid.
Yeah because this argument has always worked out in the persons favor the moment it comes out of their mouth.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Why you talk as if you actually have a higher understanding of the law and rights is beyond me when clearly you can not grasp the simple concept that saying anything anywhere is not illegal.
Again, going for the goal of being wrong - I, again, refer you to Schenck vs. United States
Originally posted by byteshertz
Well Mr Cop, I don't think anyone is going to be too worried about 'loosing' anything but their right to freedom of speech. Please explain how this is any different from you coming to my house and then saying something I don't like. I can have you arrested if you don't leave when I ask, but anything you say is not illegal.
If I am at your house because of a call for service - 911 you dont have that option. You can not prevent law enforcement from investigating the call for service. Any attempt to tell us to leave can be ignored and no action can be taken until such time as we are satisfied the call has been handeled as required by law.
If I am at your house because I just dropped by then yup, you would be within your rights to do that.
Anyting other questions you want answers to?
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
For starters, how about the nearly ONE THOUSAND lies he and his admin bellowed out around the clock to charge us into this invasion---Instigating war based on false pretenses?
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.
Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.
The draft statute enumerates four different categories of war crimes. The first two categories apply to international armed conflicts and are largely based on well-established principles of international law. There is broad support for their inclusion:
A. Grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts (largely derived from the Hague law, limiting the methods of waging war).
C. In case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (which bars specified acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities)
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law (based largely on the Second Additional Protocol to the four Geneva Conventions).
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
False Pretenses
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Leaving out the debate whether their approval of extraordinary rendition and waterboarding was legal or not (and I do not feel for a moment they are),
'''Article 1''' of the Convention defines torture as: [[Quotation |Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. |Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1]]
Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16.
were a set of legal memoranda drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the President on the use of mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in "stress positions," and waterboarding, and stated that acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of Presidential authority during the "War on Terror." These memoranda have been the focus of considerable controversy, and were repudiated by President Barack Obama in early 2009.
There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.
Violations and punishment
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.
Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.
Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant.
Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.
The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.
After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Very few people still think that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs. Nearly the entire world believed what Bush believed. It has never been proved to be a lie to date. It's been debunked for years now, but still remains a dull weapon in the liberal arsenal of propaganda.
But some lies, such as "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq", never die.
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.
The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.
The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.
In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.
Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by mishigas
Riiiight...And I will counter your "very few people believe Bush lied about WMDs" with a great big whopping >>>B.S.
The War Crimes Act differs from the Torture Act in several respects. It applies to acts committed inside or outside the United States, not simply to acts committed outside the United States.[31] Second, it prohibits actions by any American citizen or any member of the armed forces of the United States, not simply to persons acting under color of law.[32] Third, violations of the War Crimes Act that do not result in death of the victim are punishable by life in prison, not simply for a term of twenty years.[33] Finally, when it was enacted in 1996, the War Crimes Act did not mention torture or any other specific conduct like the Torture Act does, but rather contained a very broad definition of the offense. The original statute provided that “war crimes” included any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions.[34] In 2006, in the Military Commissions Act, Congress defined the term “grave breach” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to include “torture” as well as “cruel or inhuman treatment” of prisoners.[35] As in the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006) defines “torture” as the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”[36] Cruel or inhuman treatment is defined as “serious physical or mental pain or suffering,” and also includes “serious physical abuse.”[37] The law defines “serious physical pain or suffering” as including “extreme physical pain.”[38] All of these clarifications of the term “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 were made retroactive to 1997.[39] The 2006 Act replaced the requirement that mental harm be “prolonged” with a more broad definition that mental harm be merely “serious and non-transitory.”[40]
The third federal statute that prohibits waterboarding is entitled “Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons under Custody or Control of the United States Government.”[41] This law was enacted in 2005 as part of the Detainee Treatment Act,[42] and in 2006 it was supplemented in the Military Commissions Act by a statutory provision entitled “Additional Prohibition on Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”[43] These civil rights laws very simply state that no person under the physical control of the United States anywhere in the world may be subjected to any “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,”[44] and they each define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” to be any treatment or punishment which would violate the Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.[45] These civil rights laws award the same rights to all prisoners who are in the custody of the United States anywhere in the world as citizens of the United States are entitled to under the Constitution. This means that if it is unconstitutional to subject prisoners in the United States to waterboarding, then it is illegal to commit this act against prisoners in the War on Terror, wherever they are being detained.
There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]
One of the principal sponsors of the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 clarifying the War Crimes Act and outlawing cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners was Senator John McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.[50] During Attorney General Mukasey’s confirmation hearings, Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, another sponsor of the legislation, issued a statement declaring that these laws were intended to prohibit waterboarding.[51] In this statement they also disclosed that when the Military Commissions Act was enacted, the Bush Administration had personally assured them that the law as written outlawed waterboarding.[52]
Even before these laws were adopted the United States considered waterboarding to be torture and a criminal offense.[53] After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted a number of Japanese officers for torturing captured American servicemen by waterboarding.[54] Great Britain prosecuted another group of Japanese officers who had tortured British soldiers using this technique, and sentenced them to death.[55] Over a century ago, the United States prosecuted and convicted American military officers who used waterboarding against prisoners in the Philippines.[56]
Originally posted by byteshertz
The reason I have pointed out the USA has not declared war is because the case you are pointed me to - Schenck vs United States the judgment was - according to wikipedia (not the best source I know) as follows.
Originally posted by byteshertz
- The USA is not in an official war
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
Originally posted by byteshertz
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech of calling someone a "war criminal" as it not encouraging insubordination (this can not be argued - they are no longer in power)
Originally posted by byteshertz
I believe with the above comments you are now diverting the coversation, or were not clear on why I stated that no war has been declared - I have not said anywhere that in order to authorize military force they have to declare war I was simply stating the USA is not in an offical state of war so the case you cited is invalid.
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
Originally posted by byteshertz
The above passages on the authorization of military force etc are nothing to do with your original argument that
someone can be arrested for saying somthing another does not like if on private property.
Originally posted by byteshertz
I have never had any trouble with the law so I think I have learnt what I need to know. Thanks for your concern.
Originally posted by byteshertz
A cop can serve an infraction notice on someone who does not have permission. In order for someone to not have permission to be somwhere they must first be told they do not have permission - or they could easily argue the case using a 'Letter of understanding'. Just because you as a cop can issue the ticket doesnt mean it can legally stick. And for it to be a misdameanor you must be told to leave as you have stated above.
Originally posted by byteshertz
You have just contradicted yourself proving my poing - "never told you were tresspassing, after the cop told you to leave" as far as it being a lawful command - it is only a lawful command once you have been first asked to leave.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Being so arrogant and pompous that you ignore the very technicalities of the law you have sworn to uphold
- Princess
Yeah.. keep the mindset up. I am going to make a guess that youhave in fact had bad encounters with law enforcement, and most likely those encounters went bad because you are to stubborn to listen and learn because you think you are right in all of these matters.
Thats fine.. I gave you info and refuted all of your claims / comments / blah.
Originally posted by byteshertz
As you well know, whatever you says goes - until the court get's a look in and the law actually takes effect.
Very good.. I am glad to see you actually understand that the Police are not part of the Judicial branch. /clap
[
Originally posted by byteshertz
You are avoiding my question which I will rephrase to stop you from playing the cop card repetatively.
I am sure you meant your rephrase the question because I was wrong from the start game.. Go ahead and ask
Originally posted by byteshertz
If someone is at my house in a group gathering let's say a party where lot's of people gatecrashed and I I do not like something they say, can I call you to arrest them? because according to you they do not have freedom of speech on private property and are breaking the law
I did answer this. First off I am going to assume by the term gatecrashing, they just showed up and came onto your property. If that is the case yeah they can be cited for infraction tresspassing. If they are screaming and using foul language, I would look at you and ask
" Is your peace disturbed?"
If you say yes, then I will write them that citation as well.
If by gatecrashing you mean they snuck onto your property and broke down your front door, no it would not be tresspassing. It would be 2nd degree burglary in my state (tresspassing is a lesser included offense). Its a clas B felony, and they would be in jail for the weekend.
During that rucus if they are yelling screaming and cursing at you, we can tack on the peace disturbance as well.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Think about this carefully because police use this all the time - if they are called to your house for suspected drug use and the door is open they will just walk straight in - a person is required to ask them to leave or have the door shut to prevent the cop entering. You are also saying someone who is advertising something walks up your driveway, you could have them arrested for tresspassing even though you have not presented them a sign saying they are not welcome or told them they must leave.
Woah.. major issue here. Do you live in the United States? Serious question for the cops just walking in part.
If the door is wide open, and their is illegal activity or items in plain sight they can enter to prevent destruction of that evidence. They are also allowed to conduct whats called a ssafety weep. We can do a room by room search to ensure no other evidence is being destroyed, all parties in the house are accounted for, and no one is going to get a gun to shoot at us. We are NOT allowed to conduct an actual search during a safety sweep. We are limited to areas that could conceivably hide a human.
Once that is done we are required to get a search warrant if we want to search the premises based on the plain view exception that got us in. Because of the manner the drugs were discovered, its a gaurantee that defense will file a motion to exclude evidence based on an improper search. Thats up to the judge and PA to argue out. ONce we file the PC statement and log the evidence, we are done unless we get subpoenaed to testify.
If the front door is open, and nothing is in plain sight and their is no identifiable smell of burning drugs, and there are not exigent circumstances that would grant us entry (blood on the door, person screaming, etc) then we ant enter the residen period. It would conceivably be a 4th amendment violation depending on what transpired.
If we dont see anything, but can smell that is another exception (like the plain site deal). This is a bit harder as the officer will have to be 100 percent certain that the odor he smells is in fact burning marijuana / crack etc. That officer will ahve to prove to the court that he has the experience and training to recognize those odors as being unique and associated with the respective drug (marijuana, meth, crack, etc).
This is usually where department DRE's comes in (Drug Recognition Officers). They receive indepth training on drugs, smell, looks in addition to effects on the body (DUI/DWI stuff).
The problem with the last part is varying case law at the State and Federal level. The city I work for falls into 3 counties. One of those countries had issues with another larger municipality and the actions of their DRE's. Because of that problem, and the judges ruling in favor of the defendant, it screwed over all the other LEA in that county. No DRE testimony is accepted by that court.
If they are just walking in, I would tell them to step back outside. I would repeat that request if they fail to comply. If they attempt to ignore and walk past, I would be louder and more forceful in my request, moving it over to a demand to leave.
If they fail to comply, dont engage them.. Be a good witness and talk to a lawyer. Sometimes they will try to do the only your parents can tell us to leave routine. If they arent home and you are in control of the premises, its all you. Hell you could technically tell all of your friends that if tehy see cops coming to tell them to wait outside the person in control of the premis is on the way.
The more they ignore that stuff, the harder it will be for them to justify any action they have taken in court. Even if you arent charged, I would talk to a lawyer about it.
The other question I have on this. You said they tell you they receive a 911 call reporting drug use. Do they use that a lot? If they do, make amental note of the time they arrived. Talk to a lawyer and have the 911 tapes pulled to verify. They are open records under sunshine laws and they cannot legally refuse a request of those unless its part of a major investigation.
Sorry for the meandering on the last part. It irritates the crap out of me when we "push" the limits for no good reason other than to harass people.