This is a hypothetical question about the infamous Ariel Castro case: Suppose some random concerned citizen had walked past the house at some point, and seen (presumably through a window) or heard something that seemed to them to be pretty conclusive evidence of what was going on. If they called up the police and reported what they saw, assuming total police competence, what SHOULD happen from there? Would a phone call from a citizen be sufficient in and of itself to get a search warrant that would allow the cops to look behind every locked door in the house? Would it be sufficient probable cause for a search of that sort without a warrant?
Presumably you do NOT want what happens to be for the cops to knock on the door, ask if anything suspicious is going on, but NOT have a warrant, and then they come back a few days later, having given the kidnapper warning and sufficient time to dispose of the evidence, ie, kill the women and either flee the state or burn the house down or something. At the same time, you don’t want a single unconfirmed phone call to be enough to let cops examine every square inch of someone’s house… or do you?
IANAL, but I believe it likely would, although I don’t think they would need to get a search warrant as imminent danger and suspect escape represent exigent circumstances under the law. Witness the recent “swatting” pranks played on famous people. I don’t think they would immediately bust down this guys door, but a report of a hostage being held would likely result in a SWAT team or the like at your door ready to bust it down if you don’t cooperate.
Not to be all legalistic, but the best answer is: It depends. If the citizen isn’t anonymous and gives sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, it can be enough for the issuance of a search warrant. Corroboration would be preferable (and necessary in some cases) of course, as would sworn testimony. I also suppose that there could be an argument, depending on the information presented, that there could be exigent circumstances (the risk of harm to the girls is imminent for example) that would negate the need for a warrant.
A lot depends on the reliability of the information. Anonymous phone call with a vague tip … generally not reliable enough to be sufficient for a warrant. But a citizen who gives their ID and specific information about the crime can be.
Sorry for the cop out, but as with most things of a legal nature, it all depends.
Hamlet’s correct – “maybe,” is all that can be said.
It’s almost impossible to be any more certain, because probable cause is an objective standard. Whether or not it seemed to the passer-by to be conclusive is not really relevant.
The question that would have to be answered is: Does the reported sight establish probable cause as a matter of law? it’s certainly possible to imagine something that does: “I saw a man having sex with an obviously underage girl, while she was restrained with handcuffs, and saw him beating her with a whip during the act, drawing blood. My name is _________ __________ of 123 Main St.”
There are also ways to investigate beyond talking to the man. If you had a solid witness report, plus evidence that he was buying tons of groceries for a man living alone, plus records that utility use was in line for a family-occupied dwelling in that neighborhood, not a single individual . . .and that’s just what I can think of off the top of my head.
There is a fairly direct precedent here. On Valentine’s Day a kinky couple in Portland, Ore. decided a fun way to celebrate the holiday would be to drive around town with her naked and handcuffed and gagged in the back seat. A concerned citizen spotted her, and called the cops, and the car was pulled over and they were arrested.
I think the police did what they should do. You can’t let the possibility that it’s just public bondage play prevent you from investigating incidents like this, because every so often, it IS a monster like Castro and it’s not play at all. Investigate and if it’s consensual play, don’t prosecute. If it’s not consensual, prosecute. Easy as pie.
Does the complaint/report have the legal qualifications to make entering the home to look around legally viable? (Not an anonymous tip, the allegations are alarming enough to warrant entering the home). Then upon investigation, if you find evidence of someone in restraint (cuffs, cages, etc.), is it consensual (making sure the person being held is not lying to cover for her captor, or out of fear of him or her).? If not consensual, prosecute. If consensual, don’t prosecute. Still a fairly clear-cut process, except for the haziness about “what kind of complaint justifies entering the home?”