# Must I allow police snipers on my roof? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 18, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389 "2016-03-18T13:32:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/1 "2016-03-18T13:32:07Z")
A few days ago the news reported on some high-profile terrorism-related raids in Paris and Brussels. Many of the images reported by the media show police snipers poised on the roofs of nearby apartment buildings. I was wondering whether such snipers need permission from the building owners, or if the law automatically grants them the right of access. I understand that many jurisdictions make provisions for something called [“hot” or “fresh” pursuit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pursuit), but I always understood this to be about letting police enter private property to arrest a suspect who is in the process of committing a crime, or who is fleeing from the scene of a crime they’ve just committed. The recent situation in Europe is different because the crime occurred months ago, and because snipers themselves can’t put the suspects under arrest (though they are cooperating with more proximate police officers who can). Though it’s the cases in Paris and Brussels that prompted this question, I’d be interested in learning what the law in other jurisdictions says about this sort of scenario. For example, in any part of the US, does the hot pursuit doctrine (or any other law) require a homeowner to allow police snipers access to her roof, or even her home’s interior rooms? ---
**Author:** ![TheSundial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6f9a4e/32.png) [@TheSundial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSundial)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/2 "2016-03-18T14:01:53Z")
That’s an interesting question except most likely they wouldn’t fire and you wouldn’t even know they were there once they were on the roof, with you being in the interior of the building. Their protocol is to stay as quiet as possible and to not cause a scene or make their placement known. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/3 "2016-03-18T14:08:12Z")
See [exigent circumstance:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance) > [@Wikipedia](#): > > In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means the following: > > 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. > > Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts. The rest of the article indicates that this is very much a judgment call, but I would guess that the urgent need for placement of snipers in order to ensure public safety (e.g. in a hostage situation) is probably considered justification enough to require immediate access to adjacent structures. ---
**Author:** ![core](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@core](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/core)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/4 "2016-03-18T14:18:36Z")
What if they require access to the inside of the structure in order to gain roof access, and you have some drugs out? Plain sight doctrine and all that. Say you attempted to politely decline access first, and also assume the cop’s a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/5 "2016-03-18T14:19:02Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > I would guess that the urgent need for placement of snipers in order to ensure public safety (e.g. in a hostage situation) is probably considered justification enough to require immediate access to adjacent structures. Sure, but in a hostage situation there is a crime in progress, whereas in these cases there apparently wasn’t. I suppose one could still argue that public safety is at risk because the planned arrest _could lead_ to a hostage situation (or to a simple shootout). But I wonder how far one could plausibly take this reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/6 "2016-03-18T14:22:45Z")
> [@core](#): > > What if they require access to the inside of the structure in order to gain roof access, and you have some drugs out? Plain sight doctrine and all that. Say you attempted to politely decline access first, and also assume the cop’s a jerk. Yeah, this occurred to me as well. Is evidence of a property owner’s criminal activity discovered during hot pursuit of a third party admissible in court? ---
**Author:** ![Ignotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecc23a/32.png) [@Ignotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignotus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/7 "2016-03-18T14:29:20Z")
How would you go forth to _deny_ them access? They have freakin’ _guns_! Edit: If you happen to be a gun-owner yourself, shooting at them wouldn’t only make you widely impopular, but also very dead. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/8 "2016-03-18T14:43:09Z")
> [@Ignotus](#): > > How would you go forth to _deny_ them access? They have freakin’ _guns_! > > Edit: If you happen to be a gun-owner yourself, shooting at them wouldn’t only make you widely impopular, but also very dead. By “deny” I mean “withhold legal consent” or “state one’s refusal”. If it’s not legal for them to enter your property, and they know it, then there is a good chance they will simply leave. Of course, any police officer intent on breaking the law can do so if they have the means of overpowering physical resistance. But if you didn’t at least state your disagreement with their plans, it could later be taken as consent or cooperation. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/9 "2016-03-18T14:48:52Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Sure, but in a hostage situation there is a crime in progress, whereas in these cases there apparently wasn’t. I suppose one could still argue that public safety is at risk because the planned arrest _could lead_ to a hostage situation (or to a simple shootout). But I wonder how far one could plausibly take this reasoning. The wording of the Wikipedia article doesn’t indicate that criminal activity has to be taking place at the time of entry, just that there has to be an “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.” > [@Ignotus](#): > > How would you go forth to deny them access? They have freakin’ guns! I don’t think the OP is asking how to _stop_ them, but rather whether they have the authority to enter at all. If they don’t have the authority to enter (i.e. if “exigent circumstance” doesn’t apply), and they enter anyway, then you have the basis for a complaint/lawsuit after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Ignotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ecc23a/32.png) [@Ignotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ignotus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/10 "2016-03-18T15:05:52Z")
Yeah, try to sue the police for trespassing… (ROFL!) ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Sensitive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Darth\_Sensitive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Sensitive)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/11 "2016-03-18T15:19:03Z")
I plead the Third. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/12 "2016-03-18T15:56:55Z")
> [@Ignotus](#): > > Yeah, try to sue the police for trespassing… > (ROFL!) I’m not saying it would be easy or likely to succeed, but Googling turns up some past cases where the officers were hauled into court for trespassing. Some (like one [Robert Jacobs](http://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/ex-norfolk-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-trespass/article_ab687d7d-c3ab-594c-84f0-0a3fd60a1567.html)) were even convicted on criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/13 "2016-03-18T16:01:54Z")
A related question. Can the police commandeer a vehicle in an emergency? You sometimes see this in movies and I’ve often wondered about the legality of it. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/14 "2016-03-18T16:14:56Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > A related question. Can the police commandeer a vehicle in an emergency? You sometimes see this in movies and I’ve often wondered about the legality of it. I would direct you to [any one of umpteen previous threads on that topic](https://www.google.com/search?q=commandeer+site%3Aboards.straightdope.com). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/15 "2016-03-18T16:44:13Z")
> [@Darth\_Sensitive](#): > > I plead the Third. The most recent Third Amendment case I can recall[is discussed here.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/) The incident involved police forcibly entering a neighboring home to gain tactical advantage. The third amendment claim was dismissed though other claims were allowed to proceed. The [account of the incident](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) is troubling. I don’t know the outcome of those claims. Here is an [actual third amendment violation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/16 "2016-03-18T16:53:17Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > See [exigent circumstance:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance) Doesn’t apply. The exigent circumstances doctrine applies to exigencies that _already exist_. In other words, a police agency could argue that a sniper needed to enter your home in order to shoot someone in a hostage situation, but not that the sniper needed to enter to be in better position for a potential future hostage situation. As a general rule, law enforcement personnel will stay in publicly accessible areas or ask the property owner’s permission before entering. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/17 "2016-03-18T16:59:54Z")
Except for that case in Nevada. Where the broke down a door, shot the resident with a pepper ball, and shot his dog with a pepper ball, after pointing their weapons at the resident and threatening to arrest him. Because he lived next to a suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/18 "2016-03-18T17:09:37Z")
Yes, that case reads like assholery all around. > [@](#): > > The Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. Under Rule 4(m), plaintiffs have “120 days after the complaint is filed” to serve process on the defendants. If service is not timely, “the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”[69] However, “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”[70] Good cause generally exists where a plaintiff has shown diligent efforts to effect service, or other mitigating factors exist.[71] Good cause also may be present when failure to serve in a timely manner is due to some third party’s action.[72] Absent good cause, district courts have discretion to extend the time for service.[73] > > The Complaint was filed on July 1, 2013, and the 120-day period expired on October 28, 2013. Chambers and Walls were not served until October 31, 2013—three days late. The Plaintiffs argue that mitigating factors justify an extended time for service. The HPD and NLVPD accepted service for Chambers and Walls, then later reversed that acceptance. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/19 "2016-03-18T20:25:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The most recent Third Amendment case I can recall[is discussed here.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/) The incident involved police forcibly entering a neighboring home to gain tactical advantage. The third amendment claim was dismissed though other claims were allowed to proceed. The [account of the incident](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13842412842443814188&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) is troubling. I don’t know the outcome of those claims. > > Here is an [actual third amendment violation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey) These cases (and OP) remind me, uneasily, of the stunning cases, immediately and widely carried out, in the manhunt in Boston suburbs after the Boston Marathon terrorist bombing, where Boston police not only entered the houses but forced the residents out. Is this not relevant? Were any legal challenges–as opposed to journal/editorial opinion pieces–raised in the aftermath of those events in Boston? ---
**Author:** ![bomberswarm2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c37758/32.png) [@bomberswarm2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bomberswarm2)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389/20 "2016-03-18T21:31:14Z")
> [@core](#): > > What if they require access to the inside of the structure in order to gain roof access, and you have some drugs out? Plain sight doctrine and all that. Say you attempted to politely decline access first, and also assume the cop’s a jerk. No judge would indict a sniper for entering your appartment without consent, but the 4th amendment protects the drugs charge. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-i-allow-police-snipers-on-my-roof/749389.md?page=2)