# NC: Cops pepper spray black foster son of white family **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795 "2014-10-08T20:17:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/601 "2014-10-14T14:29:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again I’ll point out that there’s a difference between existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and what you’re saying. A tip can sustain probable cause. When probable cause exists, police can seize someone without a warrant. > > I agree with you that the best, wisest, most desirable course of action is to focus on not escalating the situation. And as long as your comments are focused on how police should act, I’m right there with you. > > Where I am moved to step in and argue with you, though, is when you leave the realm of “should” and start claiming that Currie’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. That claim isn’t sustainable. > > So: what you said above, I endorse: police should not have treated Currie (or the subject in the other case) as they did. To add to this, I think it’s vital to understand this difference. If existing law suggests what the police did was illegal, then the best use of energy in this case is to push for a vigorous prosecution of the officers in question. A push for a change in the law would be a waste of energy, since the law is already sufficient to punish folks who do this. If existing law suggests what the police did was legal, then the best use of energy in this case is to push for a change to the law to prevent future such occurrences. A push for prosecution would be a waste of energy, since it’s doomed to failure. Sure, it’d be ideal if the cops could be prosecuted. But why push for that if it’s a waste of time? Doing so is counterproductive. Based on what I’ve seen in this thread, it’s very unlikely that (absent new information) the cops will face prosecution. That means that, to the extent we spend energy on this case, we should spend the energy seeking a change in law. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/602 "2014-10-14T14:32:34Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > … There were no objective facts supportive of a burglary in progress. WRONG. A tip from a neighbor, an open door… > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > And, as I keep saying repeatedly as well, none of this justifies barging into a person’s home without knocking. Please label that your opinion. Fortunately, it’s an opinion not supported by law. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Even if we assume the cops were well within their rights to storm the house, You just don’t get it do you? There’s no need to _assume_ that. They were lawfully doing their duty, the same duty we, as citizens, demand they do. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > they should have given Currie the opportunity to respond to their presence like a normal person. They did. They asked him who he was and why he was there. When the information didn’t match the other evidence they observed, they proceeded to investigate > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > He hadn’t given them any reason to think that he wasn’t a normal person. By raiding the house, they put him in a defensive position no person should find themselves when they hadn’t done anything wrong or unusual. Not true. He had no reason to _defend_. If Currie had simply cooperated, it would have been over in minutes. Telling a cop you’re going to kick his ass is probably the fastest way possible to get cuffed. You don’t get any of this do you? 2 issues. 1. were the cops justified in this case? 2. should cops be less aggressive? Please keep them separate. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/603 "2014-10-14T14:48:16Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > WRONG. A tip from a neighbor, an open door… Again, though, these facts are completely commensurate both with a legitimate entry to the house AND with Currie’s story. The police need to act in accordance with both possibilities to the extent possible; instead, they overwhelmingly leaned toward trusting the neighbor’s story over Curries, despite the fact that Currie was the more knowledgeable of the two parties. > [@](#): > > You don’t get any of this do you? 2 issues. > > 1. were the cops justified in this case? > 2. should cops be less aggressive? > > Please keep them separate. If by #1, you mean “legally justified”, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/604 "2014-10-14T14:57:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again I’ll point out that there’s a difference between existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and what you’re saying. \*\*A tip can sustain probable cause. \*\* When probable cause exists, police can seize someone without a warrant. Which is a meaningless statement if you can’t explain how _this_ tip actually sustained probable cause. If you can’t do that–or at least furnish evidence in which a complaint of similar flimsiness was successful argued in court to justify warrantless entry–then I remain unpersuaded. I’m glad you support my “should” assessment, but that isn’t even what I’m arguing here. Would appreciate if you could weigh into my thought process below: > [@](#): > > The reason I have for my position is simple. I imagine what would have happened if the cops had knocked and engaged Currie under the assumption he was a lawful resident. If Currie came to the door to inform them that he lived there and promptly showed them his ID (and a background search revealed no relevant priors), then are yall really saying the cops would have had the grounds to barge in without his consent and interrogate him? I don’t see how this would be legally possible. Without probable cause that a burglary was in progress (reasonable suspicion is not probable cause), the cops would’ve needed to stay put unless Currie invited them in. If the cops had summoned Currie to the door and the above happened, would the cops been authorized to say “We have probable cause to believe you’re a burglar. Put your arms in the air and stand aside while we search the house for signs you belong here.”? I’m asking this sincerely. Without introducing any other information to this hypothetical, does this sound legal to you? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/605 "2014-10-14T14:58:20Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > They did. They asked him who he was and why he was there. When the information didn’t match the other evidence they observed, they proceeded to investigate Admittedly it’s been several days since I read the report, but I don’t remember anywhere in there where they asked him these questions. I recall his volunteering this information and being ignored by the cops when he did, and I recall them challenging him on why his ID did not show his current address. If they asked him who he was and why he was there, can you please cite that? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/606 "2014-10-14T15:03:40Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] I don’t know how many times I have to say this to get this through your head. There were no objective facts supportive of a burglary in progress. [/QUOTE] I think the problem here is that you are wrong. There were, in fact, objective facts supportive of a burglary in progress. The neighbor reported a stranger she did not recognize entering a house in a neighborhood where several robberies had occurred. The neighbor knew the family, which consisted of older white parents and their small white children. The stranger was neither small, older, nor white. It is relatively common for burglars to gain entry to a house thru an open door or window ([cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safeguardtheworld.com%2Fstatistics.html&ei=DzY9VJDbCLLP8QGm54DADg&usg=AFQjCNEr3OFQHufUjxQbzXHrWHvqTr8_7Q&sig2=o3W2q1rGo6q70AXm02W21Q&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U)). And it is not necesary to break a lock or a door for it to constitute the crime of burglary in nearly all jurisdictions ([cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFEQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nolo.com%2Flegal-encyclopedia%2Fburglary-basics-32640.html&ei=DzY9VJDbCLLP8QGm54DADg&usg=AFQjCNG37gNxb9Id7ha5AjRjRzMQNebtwQ&sig2=eOPQvnr7gIi8C5ckMC5LPA&bvm=bv.77161500,d.b2U)). Neighbors reporting burglaries is extremely common ([cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kptv.com%2Fstory%2F23663579%2Fdeputies-neighbor-alerts-man-to-burglary-prison-escapee-arrested&ei=izg9VM7JAcWU8QHqvYCQDw&usg=AFQjCNFCs4jbiqTzIebmrEioGpzEKb8TPg&sig2=jOfGh3bEdZqdRwfvANDxGg), [cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexingtonleader.com%2Fnews%2F2014-10-09%2FFront_Page%2FAlert_Neighbor_Reports_Burglary.html&ei=izg9VM7JAcWU8QHqvYCQDw&usg=AFQjCNER1Vc55Tpscvg8ef2lTQyt3fE_Sg&sig2=O1-cJPLcAeBSggtAXcY8qA), [cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fcrime-courts%2Fci_26606461%2Fsan-jose-alert-neighbor-helps-police-catch-teen&ei=izg9VM7JAcWU8QHqvYCQDw&usg=AFQjCNEVASkRyRh1h1ur2VGe2R5EJCiiDw&sig2=vImOyzsNKmocrcu1hzDQng), [cite](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEwQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.buffalonews.com%2Fcity-region%2Fneighbor-foils-attempted-burglary-on-east-side-20141012&ei=RDk9VOyEDIrK8gGo9YHgDw&usg=AFQjCNHQUc4EXTcgVvcCN4L4lDNcyp3pZw&sig2=wIaOLLqxaBqNstG7GAOcOA), [etc](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=20&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFoQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.channel3000.com%2Fnews%2Fpolice-thank-concerned-neighbor-for-reporting-burglary%2F25840396&ei=RDk9VOyEDIrK8gGo9YHgDw&usg=AFQjCNFMZTRjhGVhWDSdOfsNab03LHX0NA&sig2=1h5qKoQI6gUwUHAFtj3bzw)). So what you are claiming is stupid and wrong. So stop claiming it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/607 "2014-10-14T15:13:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Based on what I’ve seen in this thread, it’s very unlikely that (absent new information) the cops will face prosecution. That means that, to the extent we spend energy on this case, we should spend the energy seeking a change in law. I don’t think talking about the legality of their conduct is orthogonal to promoting more judicious, humane conduct. Presumably constitutional protections are in place to uphold humane conduct. When that breaks down, we need to look at what the law allows and doesn’t allow. If this discussion and others are a good indicator, huge swaths of the public think that as long as the cops aren’t breaking any laws, they can do whatever they want. Personally, I think this is sad rubbish, but I’m pragmatic enough to understand the world I’m living in. So if their entire argument hinges upon something being legal, we need to be skeptical enough ask for proof of that. Actual prosecution is a separate matter from spit balling arguments on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/608 "2014-10-14T15:16:38Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Admittedly it’s been several days since I read the report, but I don’t remember anywhere in there where they asked him these questions. Read it again. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/609 "2014-10-14T15:25:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If existing law suggests what the police did was illegal Even if I was totally outraged at the conduct of the officers in this situation (and how “wrong” they were, imho, depends on something we don’t know, which is the precise wording and tone of how they interacted with Currie), I find it pretty hard to see how their overall actions could be made illegal without also making a whole lot of actually legitimate police action illegal. Can you imagine drafting a law which somehow defines “how much” “de-escalation” is required in a situation like that? Or do you think that responding to the tip should have been illegal? If so, then your proposed law either will outlaw investigation in situations in which the tip is far more credible and precise, or will need to have some awfully carefully worded language. I know that there are parts of the cops’ action in this case which you think showed bad judgment and were poorly chosen. But which parts do you think actually should be illegal? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/610 "2014-10-14T15:31:16Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Here’s a better hypothetical that is comparable to Currie’s situation: You’re at home, about to kick back and relax in front of the XBox, when cops storm through the door with guns raised, bellowing at you to put your hands against the wall. That would really suck. I would be upset about it. And if I responded with violence, I would get pepper sprayed. The pepper spraying would be a consequence of an action I took. The cops (or maybe some guy who decided that reporting terrorist or drug activity at my address would be hilarious) would have set off a chain of events that led to me standing with my hands up against the wall being very upset – and I would have chosen an action that resulted in getting pepper sprayed. > [@](#): > > If the cops hadn’t unnecessarily set off a chain of events that almost guaranteed some kind of physical conflict, Your use of the phrase “almost guaranteed” is where you and I disagree, apparently. > [@](#): > > And all of this presumes anyway that the cops didn’t lie about what happened. My gut tells me Currie was pepper sprayed simply because the cop was sick of him hearing his angry diatribe. They knew he was unarmed and unlikely to act on his teenage posturing. If the cops pepper sprayed him just because he was mouthing off at them, but not physically resisting or threatening him, then they are 100% wrong and should be prosecuted. Again, a situation that demonstrates why everything that cops do should be videotaped. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/611 "2014-10-14T15:32:38Z")
From the case cited earlier: > [@](#): > > A basic tenet of Fourth Amendment law is that warrantless searches and seizures carried out inside private residences are **presumptively unreasonable** unless justified by one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748-49, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). \*\*The exigent circumstances exception has been recognized in situations of hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, and risk of danger to the police and others. **United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir.1996). The police bear a “heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.” Welsh, 466 U.S. at 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091; see also United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1162 (6th Cir.1984).** According to this ruling, we should presume warrantless entry to be unreasonable in the absence of extingent circumstances. None of which were in play when the cops showed up. Furthermore, cops have a “heavy burden” when arguing the necessity of this kind of action. Based on their reports, no “heavy” burden was supplied by the cops. In contrast to the situation outlined in that court case, they did not do an examination of the premises, did not attempt to determine whether anyone was home, and did not interview the neighbor who phoned in the complaint. In addition, there was no alarm that served as an objective indicator of an unauthorized entry. This is no trifle issue that should be shrugged off. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/612 "2014-10-14T15:37:20Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > **MaxtheVool** , in the omnibus police thread weren’t you among several posters who expressed outrage at the knockless raid that resulted in the death of the Georgia grandfather? A tip from a meth head was all it took to sign off on this warrant, just like a neighbor’s tip was all it took to get Currie’s house raided. > > Barging into a person’s residence unannounced on the basis of flimsy evidence is not a necessary evil in the vast majority of cases. It doesn’t take a genius to see how this elevates the chance of conflict 100 fold. Those situations don’t seem particularly comparable to me. I don’t see “I saw a black teenager go into the side door of the house across the street, I’m pretty sure a white family with little kids lives there” as particularly similar to “oh, that meth you found in the car I admit I stole? Ohh, umm, it was there when I stole it, I guess the guy I stole it from runs a meth lab. Yeah, that’s the ticket!”. Nor is “police enter, confront a guy, don’t realize he lives there, his ID shows a different address, he loses his temper, physically resists, gets pepper sprayed” that much like “cops burst in without identifying themselves wearing camo, homeowner has a shotgun, they shoot him”. There are similarities, but only superficial ones. ---
**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:** [October 14, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/613 "2014-10-14T15:39:31Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I don’t know how many times I have to say this to get this through your head. There were no objective facts supportive of a burglary in progress. If the threshold for extingent circumstance is as low as “I saw a unknown guy entering my neighbor’s house” then we might as well treat warrants as optional things. There was no imminent harm to anyone (the neighbor claimed the house was empty, no evidence in danger of being destroyed, and no risk of imminent escape. Protection of property can be sufficient to create exigent circumstances. Do you agree? I’m not sure if you left that out on purpose or as an oversight. You claim there were no objective facts. How do you define that? Objectivley - there was a 911 call and police responded to a potential burglary in progress. When they arrived, they saw a door open - the same door that the call was regarding. Those are objective facts. I believe your take on this is that these facts alone do not support a reasonable belief that a burglary was in progress. I can accept that this is what you believe. The courts disagree with you. > [@Bricker](#): > > Again I’ll point out that there’s a difference between existing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and what you’re saying. A tip can sustain probable cause. When probable cause exists, police can seize someone without a warrant. > > I agree with you that the best, wisest, most desirable course of action is to focus on not escalating the situation. And as long as your comments are focused on how police should act, I’m right there with you. > > Where I am moved to step in and argue with you, though, is when you leave the realm of “should” and start claiming that Currie’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. That claim isn’t sustainable. > > So: what you said above, I endorse: police should not have treated Currie (or the subject in the other case) as they did. I agree as well. The approach that was taken by police was sub-optimal. It was however, legal and consistent with the fourth amendment. When you make claims of fact that are in error - it weakens other ideas you may present, IMO. At a minimum we need to understand and agree how the law currently stands otherwise there is no basis to enact change. If you liken it to the civil forfeiture discussion that’s been gong on lately - this is not new. But the truth of what the law is can be more outrageous than some concocted fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/614 "2014-10-14T15:51:28Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > According to this ruling, we should presume warrantless entry to be unreasonable in the absence of extingent circumstances. None of which were in play when the cops showed up. Wrong (again). ["Courts look at the time when the officer makes the warrantless search or seizure to evaluate whether at that point in time a reasonable officer at the scene would believe it is urgent to act and impractical to secure a warrant. Courts may also consider whether the facts suggested that the suspect was armed and planning to escape, whether a reasonable police officer would believe his safety or others’ safety was threatened, and whether there was a serious crime involved.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances)" Obviously, a burglary in progress is urgent, and it would be impractical to secure a warrant. And also pretty obviously burglars constitute a threat to the safety of the homeowners, and burglary is a serious crime. So if not textbook, it is still a pretty clear example of a justified entry. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [October 14, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/615 "2014-10-14T15:52:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The reason I have for my position is simple. I imagine what would have happened if the cops had knocked and engaged Currie under the assumption he was a lawful resident. If Currie came to the door to inform them that he lived there and promptly showed them his ID (and a background search revealed no relevant priors), then are yall really saying the cops would have had the grounds to barge in without his consent and interrogate him? I don’t see how this would be legally possible. Without probable cause that a burglary was in progress (reasonable suspicion is not probable cause), the cops would’ve needed to stay put unless Currie invited them in. > > If the cops had summoned Currie to the door and the above happened, would the cops been authorized to say “We have probable cause to believe you’re a burglar. Put your arms in the air and stand aside while we search the house for signs you belong here.”? I’m asking this sincerely. Without introducing any other information to this hypothetical, does this sound legal to you? So if part of the fact pattern changed, would the determination, judgment, and evaluation of the officers change? Remember, the standard is based on the totality of circumstances that a reasonable officer would believe. If there was no open door I doubt the police would be justified in detaining Currie or using force to enter the house. I would expect police in that case to walk around the curtilage of the house and look inside anything visible through windows. I believe this is common on alarm calls. If nothing is visible, they leave. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/616 "2014-10-14T16:07:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So if part of the fact pattern changed, would the determination, judgment, and evaluation of the officers change? Remember, the standard is based on the totality of circumstances that a reasonable officer would believe. Sure. If Currie opened the door, saw the cops, identified himself and then promptly took off running like a man in fear of being caught, then I believed they would have cause to apprehend and detain him. Because that’s evidence that goes to guilt. It seems we all agree that cops needed probable cause that Currie was a burglar to enter his home without his permission. If you think cops had probable cause for warrantless entry, was there probable cause to arrest Currie on sight? Why or why not? This is the test for your how committed you are to your position. If the cops needed to obtain more evidence to arrest him for burglary, then my interpretation of the law tells me more evidence was needed to enter his home too. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/617 "2014-10-14T16:09:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Read it again. No u ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/618 "2014-10-14T16:11:43Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > There are similarities, but only superficial ones. Only because you have more access to information than they did. Currie and the grandfather were equally innocent and in the dark about their cops behavior. The information used against them in both cases should have been questioned more before being treated as rock solid truth. ---
**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:** [October 14, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/619 "2014-10-14T16:16:24Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It seems we all agree that cops needed probable cause that Currie was a burglar to enter his home without his permission. No. They needed to reasonably believe that there was a burglary in progress based on the totality of circumstances. There is no need to believe that Currie was a burglar specifically. > [@](#): > > If you think cops had probable cause for warrantless entry, was there probable cause to arrest Currie on sight? Why or why not? Currie wasn’t arrested on sight. He was detained. The standard for an investigatory detention is less than probable cause. It is reasonable suspicion. > [@](#): > > This is the test for your how committed you are to your position. If the cops needed to obtain more evidence to arrest him for burglary, then my interpretation of the law tells me more evidence was needed to enter his home too. The evaluation of the two different actions are not the same. Conflating the two would be an error on your part. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/620 "2014-10-14T16:44:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. They needed to reasonably believe that there was a burglary in progress based on the totality of circumstances. There is no need to believe that Currie was a burglar specifically. Support this claim with fact. Again, for the third time, from 449 F. 3d 741 - United States v. Brown: > [@](#): > > To justify a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances, there must also be **probable cause** to enter the residence. United States v. Johnson, 9 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1511 n. 6 (6th Cir.1988)). **Probable cause is defined as “reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.”** United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990). The same evidence that supported “a burglary in progress” also implicated Currie, which is why he was detained and interrogated. If that was insufficient to arrest him, you need to support why it was sufficient to barge into his home and search the premises. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=32)