# 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:** 37
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/721 "2014-10-15T15:23:18Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > **Here is what we have in Currie’s case:** > > - No objective facts that imply a break-in (the cops claim the side door was slightly ajar, but that alone doesn’t suggest forced entry) > > - A report from a neighbor that an person unknown to them entered a house. No claim of B&E or suspicious activity. > > - No attempt by the cops to summon lawful occupants–no knock-and-announce > > - No interview with the witness to clarify what they saw and their credibility with regards to recognizing who does and does not belong in that household. > . > . > . > So **Bricker** here is what I’m asking to prove: that cops acting on similar levels of evidence (nonspecific 911 call and an slightly ajar door) were lawfully allowed to conduct a warrantless entry without first attempting to exclude the presence of lawful occupants. OK. So assuming I can find a case with a burglary report that simply says an unknown person was seen (that is, the police were dispatched to investigate a burglary, but the report was premised on the mere presence of an unknown person), found no evidence of burglary beyond an open door, and failed to knock, you’ll be convinced? I ask because I’ve rephrased a couple of things you said – I don’t understand exactly what “attempting to exclude the presence of lawful occupants” might mean, apart from knocking. But is that a fair summary? ---
**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 15, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/722 "2014-10-15T15:34:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > - No interview with the witness to clarify what they saw and their credibility with regards to recognizing who does and does not belong in that household. Just looked back at the police report and saw that this is incorrect; one of the cops did talk to the 911 caller before entering the house. What is appalling, though, is how flimsy the complaint was even in their report. “A black person who I have never seen before entered my neighbor’s house.” That an allegation this weak would treated like probable cause is both laughable and scary. Secondly, one of the cops noted in their report that upon seeing them in his home, Currie immediately 1) asked the reason for their intrusion and 2) where was their warrant, “You can’t just come in my house like this!”. This makes me feel extra bad for Currie. He knew enough about his rights to demand an explanation for their uninvited presence in his own and a legal authorization. And in return he was met with hostility and aggression. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/723 "2014-10-15T15:45:03Z")
I have a case in which the police respond to a reported burglary. They don’t see any evidence of a break-in, but they see a male suspect exit the house. He claims that he and his girlfriend are there with permission from the homeowner but doesn’t have a key or a way to contact the homeowner. The police enter the home without knocking to look for additional suspects or any evidence of a burglary. After entering, they don’t find any evidence of burglary, and it turns out both suspects did, in fact, have permission from the homeowner. However, while checking the house for additional suspects, officers found glass vials and other equipment for drug manufacture. The homeowner was charged in connection with those items. Is this case a useful analogy? ---
**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 15, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/724 "2014-10-15T15:51:53Z")
I understand **YWTF** believe that police responding to a 911 burglary call and observing an open door do not have sufficient basis to support exigent circumstances to enter the house through the open door without a warrant. That’s just not true. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You are acting rather desperate by citing this case, **Shodan**. Perhaps you should leave this fight up to **Bricker**. This is after you used [ehow.com](http://ehow.com) and copinthehood via blogger. While not attacking these sources, they are less authoritative than others that have been presented. ---
**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 15, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/725 "2014-10-15T15:51:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. So assuming I can find a case with a burglary report that simply says an unknown person was seen (that is, the police were dispatched to investigate a burglary, but the report was premised on the mere presence of an unknown person), found no evidence of burglary beyond an open door, and failed to knock, you’ll be convinced? > > **I ask because I’ve rephrased a couple of things you said – I don’t understand exactly what “attempting to exclude the presence of lawful occupants” might mean, apart from knocking.** It means at least making a good faith effort to determine whether the homeowners are present. A knock would be the most obvious way to do this, but it could also be done by inquiring with someone qualified to report on the presence or absence of the homeowners. For example, in one case that was cited (can’t remember which one), an alarm was activated twice and the alarm company attempted to reach the homeowner multiple times by phone. They reported their lack of success to the cops, so they had good reason to believe that if anyone was inside the home, it was a burglar. And yet I do believe in this case, they still knocked-and-announced before entering. So if you come up with a case in which there was no knock, but the cops still showed due diligence in contacting the homeowners, I will reject it. Understand? ---
**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 15, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/726 "2014-10-15T15:55:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have a case in which the police respond to a reported burglary. They don’t see any evidence of a break-in, but they see a male suspect exit the house. He claims that he and his girlfriend are there with permission from the homeowner but doesn’t have a key or a way to contact the homeowner. > > The police enter the home without knocking to look for additional suspects or any evidence of a burglary. > > After entering, they don’t find any evidence of burglary, and it turns out both suspects did, in fact, have permission from the homeowner. > > However, while checking the house for additional suspects, officers found glass vials and other equipment for drug manufacture. The homeowner was charged in connection with those items. > > Is this case a useful analogy? Please supply the case and a link to the case and I’ll look at it. The facts alleged in the 911 call matter, as does the behavior of the suspect when stopped by the police. ---
**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 15, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/727 "2014-10-15T15:58:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I understand **YWTF** believe that police responding to a 911 burglary call and observing an open door do not have sufficient basis to support exigent circumstances to enter the house through the open door without a warrant. That’s just not true. Your belief is mistaken. For the last several pages I couldn’t be clearer that my issue is with probable cause. Your refusal to move past the extigent thing is your problem, not mine. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/728 "2014-10-15T15:58:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It means at least making a good faith effort to determine whether the homeowners are present. A knock would be the most obvious way to do this, but it could also be done by inquiring with someone qualified to report on the presence or absence of the homeowners. > > For example, in one case that was cited (can’t remember which one), an alarm was activated twice and the alarm company attempted to reach the homeowner multiple times by phone. They reported their lack of success to the cops, so they had good reason to believe that if anyone was inside the home, it was a burglar. > > And yet I do believe in this case, they still knocked-and-announced before entering. > > So if you come up with a case in which there was no knock, but the cops still showed due diligence in contacting the homeowners, I will reject it. Understand? OK. I’m just going to need to figure out what you mean by “due diligence,” so I hope you’ll forgive me if I try a couple of different fact patterns out on you. > [@](#): > > In response to a report of a possible burglary in progress, Phoenix Police Officer Gary McCaslin arrived at Defendant’s house and began to investigate. McCaslin saw movement through an open window and believed someone was inside. Soon after noticing this movement, McCaslin observed a male suspect back out of the house. McCaslin immediately identified himself and handcuffed the man, who told McCaslin that his girlfriend was still inside. At McCaslin’s direction, the male suspect called the girlfriend out. The suspects claimed to have permission from Defendant to be in the house, but they did not know how to contact Defendant and did not have a key. > > Having good reason to believe he had interrupted a burglary in progress, McCaslin entered the house to look for additional suspects and any evidence of a burglary. During this sweep, McCaslin noticed chemicals, glass vials, and laboratory equipment in a storage space above an open closet. He suspected that these items may have been used to manufacture drugs. After finishing his sweep, McCaslin called for his supervisor, Sergeant Saylor, who seems to have been about ten minutes away from the premises. When Saylor entered the house, McCaslin took him to the closet to look at the items McCaslin had seen during his sweep. Saylor also was unable to tell whether the items were used in manufacturing drugs and called for assistance from the Drug Enforcement Bureau (“DEB”). Neither Saylor nor McCaslin at any time touched or moved the items in the closet. From _State v. DeWitt_, a 1996 Arizona Supreme Court case. (910 P. 2d 9). I’m not sure I see what would be “due diligence” there, but I welcome your feedback. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/729 "2014-10-15T16:01:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Is this case a useful analogy? And actually, no it’s not useful. Because the cops made contact with the suspect prior to entering the home. Currie was denied this chance, so its not analogous. It sounds as if the suspect’s failure to supply an alibi gave the cops probable cause to believe they were burglars. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/730 "2014-10-15T16:01:56Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Your belief is mistaken. For the last several pages I couldn’t be clearer that my issue is with probable cause. Your refusal to move past the extigent thing is your problem, not mine. Probable cause to do what exactly? I’m focused merely on the entry to the house which you contend violated the 4th amendment. Exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless entry does not hinge on probable cause. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/731 "2014-10-15T16:06:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. So assuming I can find a case with a burglary report that simply says an unknown person was seen (that is, the police were dispatched to investigate a burglary, but the report was premised on the mere presence of an unknown person), found no evidence of burglary beyond an open door, and failed to knock, you’ll be convinced? I re-read the police report, and it appears the door was not open. The door was closed but unlocked. I hadn’t noticed that before. To me, an open door can be considered a sign of intrusion, requiring immediate action, a closed door, not so much. Closed door… you knock first. Open garage doors don’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/732 "2014-10-15T16:09:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It sounds as if the suspect’s failure to supply an alibi gave the cops probable cause to believe they were burglars. Currie also failed to supply an alibi. And again, the police do not need probable cause to enter a house under the described circumstances. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/733 "2014-10-15T16:11:21Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I re-read the police report, and it appears the door was not open. The door was closed but unlocked. I hadn’t noticed that before. > > To me, an open door can be considered a sign of intrusion, requiring immediate action, a closed door, not so much. Closed door… you knock first. Open garage doors don’t count. Actually, that’s extremely significant. An open door can (and has) served as support for the view that a burglary may be in progress. A closed door (locked or unlocked) is of absolutely no help to the police’s theory, unless there’s some other evidence (broken window, pry marks, etc). If the door was not open, I think I’m now a convert to **you with the face** ’s thinking: the entry was not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/734 "2014-10-15T16:14:27Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > De-escalation would have been wonderful The problem I’m having is determining what is so friggen difficult or humiliating about complying with a police order to \*sit down and calm down \*. Good Og, that seems so simple in the scheme of things and it would have gone so far in preventing this mess. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend? You’re not aware of personal experiences or subgroup experiences with the police that might make someone feel humiliated or angry or resistant in this kind of confrontation with police? ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/735 "2014-10-15T16:18:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I re-read the police report, and it appears the door was not open. The door was closed but unlocked. I hadn’t noticed that before. > > To me, an open door can be considered a sign of intrusion, requiring immediate action, a closed door, not so much. Closed door… you knock first. Open garage doors don’t count. I’m unclear - I thought the police report indicated the door was ajar. Was this not the case? If the door is closed, that is a materially different fact pattern. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/736 "2014-10-15T16:18:43Z")
**Bricker** , see my last post. These cases are not comparable because the cops interacted with the suspects prior to entering the home. I’m going to point out elements of probable cause that make this case non-analogous to Currie’s. > [@](#): > > In response to a report of a possible burglary in progress, Phoenix Police Officer Gary McCaslin arrived at Defendant’s house and began to investigate. **McCaslin saw movement through an open window and believed someone was inside.** Soon after noticing this movement, **McCaslin observed a male suspect back out of the house.** Sounds like the suspect was engaged in fleeing-type behavior after seeing the cop through the window. This points to guilt. > [@](#): > > McCaslin immediately identified himself and handcuffed the man, who told McCaslin that his girlfriend was still inside. At McCaslin’s direction, the male suspect called the girlfriend out. **The suspects claimed to have permission from Defendant to be in the house, but they did not know how to contact Defendant and did not have a key.** They were asked for info that would assist the cop in following-up on their alibi, but somehow was unable to supply it. That plus not having a key and the fleeing behavior would give someone reason to think something is afoot. The other thing is that there was no need at this point to flush out the lawful occupant by knocking, because the suspect reported they weren’t there. An innocent suspect would have zero incentive to lie about this. On the other hand, a guilty suspect would have an incentive to lie if they had tied up the homeowner and held them under duress. Under this scenario, the homeowner wouldn’t be capable of responding to a door knock. The possibility of this plus the other objective facts in play (and we still don’t know the exact nature of the 911 call) support probable cause and extingent circumstances _and_ entering without knocking. But as I pointed out already, this case is not analogous to Currie because Currie never interacted with the cops before they entered his home. He gave them zero reason to suspect him of a crime. The same can’t be said for the suspects in State v. DeWitt. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/737 "2014-10-15T16:22:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Probable cause to do what exactly? I’m officially giving up on you. Will not be wasting time on your stupidity any longer. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/738 "2014-10-15T16:25:25Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I’m officially giving up on you. Will not be wasting time on your stupidity any longer. Good luck with your life! ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/739 "2014-10-15T16:28:10Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I re-read the police report, and it appears the door was not open. The door was closed but unlocked. I hadn’t noticed that before. You are right. The first cop on the scene reported “twisting the doorknob to check to see if it was unlocked”. Then he reported it was unsecure. Why would you need to test the doorknob to see if _a open door_ is unlocked? Logic follows that it was not open. It was closed and they opened it. Conclusion: these cops violated Currie’s 4th amendment protections on the basis of a nonspecific 911 call and nothing else. We should all be outraged. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/740 "2014-10-15T16:31:54Z")
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak] I re-read the police report, and it appears the door was not open. The door was closed but unlocked. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > The garage door was unlocked and open slightly as we made entry. [Cite - pdf](http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/141009121613_0001.pdf). Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=38)