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.
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.
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.
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.
This is after you used ehow.com and copinthehood via blogger. While not attacking these sources, they are less authoritative than others that have been presented.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sounds like the suspect was engaged in fleeing-type behavior after seeing the cop through the window. This points to guilt.
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.