See post #295. It does not mention warrants. Only trespassing. At least in the section I was quoting.
So you’re ignoring the citations from the laws that say otherwise? The exigent circumstances refers to breaking in.
Here’s a important paragraph from that article that the cops discarded.
Nothing in the cops’ report showed that they tried the least intrusive means to rule out anything. They didn’t knock on the door and when they entered, they likely came in with guns drawn, yelling belligerently. There was no need to do all of that. Once they heard Currie coming down the stairs, they should have treated him like he belonged until he gave them a good reason to believe that he was committing a crime.
Some of yall think the standard works the other way. That a citizen needs to prove to cops that they aren’t breaking the law. This kind of thinking should boil the blood of every patriotic American.
Just so I’m clear - do you believe the police entering the house was illegal?
Jesus fucking Christ. Of course what I or you think doesn’t matter, with regards to what the facts are. Our opinions about our police force most certainly does matter, since, you know, we kind of as a society determine how we want to be policed, and that can change over time.
What other ‘idiots’ here or elsewhere think or don’t think with regards to other specific instances is between you and them. Don’t bring your bullshit generalizations into what a number of us are attempting to make into a reasonable conversation.
No. What I’m saying is that the report of an on-the-face-of-it non-criminal activity (A person has entered a house. A witness who lives nearby does not recognize that person) is not grounds to assume a crime has been committed. It is grounds to swing by and talk to whoever is home to see what’s up, though.
Maybe. But not by going in with guns out. Knock and be neighborly, given the facts at hand in this instance.
“If the police were in fact in the wrong here, the courts will find them so. Judging by how rarely that happens, it seems that the police are in the wrong a lot less than certain idiots here think they are.”
Someone is either quite naive or unwittingly or wilfuly ignorant of how the legal system works. These declarative statements are evidence that you do not know from whence you speak; whether you want to correct the miseducation is entirely up to you, but it’s both alarming and not surprising (and it’s in part why things remain as they do).
It is rare for courts to “find [police in the wrong]” for a number of very specific reasons, not the least of which is that the legal system would come to a grinding halt if the standards/bar were set where laypeople believe they are or should be.
I used to be like you, and that’s with 25 years in the world of law under my belt as of when I woke up. As such, I realize all too well the learning curve for the average citizen who believes what they need or want to believe – never mind a ton of persistent and damaging myths – and will not go out of their way to open their eyes or take off the blinders.
In the manner that they did, yes. Articulate why you think they were legally able to enter that home without knocking and at least waiting to see if anyone would answer the door.
Do you disagree that this would have been least intrusive way of establishing whether Currie was a criminal? They could have posted someone in the backyard and then waited to see if yelling “police!” would have flushed him out. For all they knew, a granny with heart problems was in the kitchen. They could have given her a coronary infarction with their actions.
“But they were investigating a burglary!” doesn’t cut it to me. When they came on the scene, there was no evidence of a break in. No broken glass, not sledge hammered door knobs. A cursory inspection of the door should’ve confirmed it hadn’t been pried open. Even if we accept their story that the door was ajar (and I do not…it’s just awfully convenient the kid would have left the door gaping open at the precise moment the cops wanted to come in the home), this doesn’t justify the immediately responding to him the way they did. It just doesn’t.
“Some of yall think the standard works the other way. That a citizen needs to prove to cops that they aren’t breaking the law. This kind of thinking should boil the blood of every patriotic American.”
I’d have said this myself. (However, since I’m a neurotic nitpicker, I’d tack the second (fragment of a) sentence onto the first. It’s nothing personal; it’s a disorder.) 
And for another nitpicking correction (this time of myself), please note that in reference to MO v. NC above (as to breaking and entering), it’s a part typographical error and part too fast and furious the “it’s reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to merely be brown” headlines.
Kindayeah. AFAICT, “it must be okay or the courts would have punished the cops for doing it” does not rank much higher on the Sensible Skepticism Scale than “it must be okay or the cops wouldn’t have done it”.
But the cops had no reasonable suspicion of a break-in, as far as I know. As far as I’m aware, they received a report from a neighbor that someone brown was seen entering a house and possibly “as far as I know, people like me live there.” (While it is accepted that in the world of law enforcement, this information may be treated as though it serves as reasonable suspicion of a crime in progress, it is not in fact part of the law. The police given the so far uncorrected information available were not even entitled to approach the situation as reasonable suspicion of trespassing. Even if someone tells me that there was signage posted on the property to indicate “no trespassing” and it was a fenced and gated property, I’d have to know more before making a legal assessment.)
I suppose a jury will decide - if it goes to that. I think you’re wrong.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, 911 call of suspected burglary and open door, the police had sufficient basis to enter the premises without a warrant.
I agree that there were less intrusive ways to determine if there were a burglary in progress. Those include knocking, asking, calling for a town hall meeting, holding a vote, writing a letter, etc. The question isn’t what is the least intrusive method - it’s whether or not the method used was legal.
You are ignoring the citation she provided earlier that says they do in fact have to use the least intrusive method. You also are ignoring LoD’s citation of how “exigent circumstances” is actually defined legally.
Maybe there was a rebuttal that I missed, but it would mean ywtf missed it, too.
EDIT: And I see I did miss one rebuttal. But not the one about the least intrusive method.
“Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan
If someone reports an unrecognised person going into a neighbour’s house, the police’s job is to find out who that person is, and if he belongs there. Whether it’s a black teen, the new owner, the local plumber who they’ve hired, or the second coming of christ, it doesn’t matter.”
Based on information posed (someone reporting an unrecognized person going into a neighbor’s house), this is wildly incorrect. For the purpose of a useful exercise, would you explain to me how and where you developed this belief or, as you’d almost certainly put it, “knowledge” (since it’s a declarative statement)?
Ahh, right you are.
Because I am wondering. There has been lots of speculating and assuming going on here on both sides, so I am going to throw in some wondering. We got folks saying everything the police did is hunky-dory and the violent kid should have been maced. We got folks saying the racist, jack-booted thugs assaulted an innocent kid who did absolutely nuthin objectionable and got peppered. We have people talking in absolutes!
They are both saying it like they knew for certain what went on. I don’t know what went on. I would not bet either way at the moment. I suspect that truth, when all the facts are out, will satisfy neither side. That is often how it turns out…with things not being so cut and dried.
Until all facts are out, I find myself wondering about things that seem strange but may not be important in the long run. Why? 'Cause it’s fun!
Like, he’s been there a whole year and the neighbors haven’t seen him before. He’s been there a year and his ID has not been updated. He’s loved like the other children but they have no photos of him on the family wall. He’s lived there a year and doesn’t have a key. I wonder if has any mail in the mailbox.
Yes, I know. These things do not prove anything of any sort. But dammit, I watch cop shows! and these things mean…MYSTERY!
There is no requirement that the least intrusive method be used. Therefore there is nothing to rebut. Exigent circumstances is not clearly defined, but to the extent that it has been in court cases, generally the totality of the circumstances is used to evaluate whether or not they exist.
There’s no need for us to wait for all the “facts to come out”, Typo. All the information needed to damn the cops is present in their own report.
Wow, you got that from reading the report? Fortunately our legal system doesn’t follow your logic here.
Did this neighbor not know that was a foster home? That teens of all kinds moved in and out with some regularity? Or did that just not matter until he saw a black one?
So that whole 4th amendment stuff is just optional nonsense. Ok.
Until you can supply a cite saying knockless entry, sans warrant, is legal when responding to a complaint for which there is no physical evidence sufficient to believe a crime is occurring and there’s imminent harm to the public, why should anyone take your position seriously?