The report also indicates Stancil was the last to enter the premises, but the first to turn the doorknob.
My takeaway is that Stancil tested the door, found it unlocked, and then cracked it. The other cops then moved in while Stancil lingered behind to “clear” the garage. Then he entered.
OK.
I’m not going to try to resolve factual disputes. I’m here to discuss what legal meaning a particular set of facts has.
So what I’m saying is:
IF the door was closed when the police arrived, and IF the police saw no other evidence to support a break-in, then their warrantless entry was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.
IF the door was open when they arrived, then their entry was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
I will bow out of a debate that moves into discussing which of those factual predicates actually existed.
Noted. My bad for implying you didn’t read the report closely enough.
Bricker, a legal question. Let’s say the door was closed, but unlocked. The cops arrive after the neighbor calls in what she thinks is an intruder. The cops walk around the premises and see no one. The report is that someone who does not live at the address entered. Seems they are duty bound to determine that there is no one in the home who should not be there. Correct?
It’s not even a discrepancy. Stancil shows up, goes to the garage door the neighbor reports as having been used by the stranger, and waits for backup. After all, this is a possible burglary in progress in a high-crime neighborhood. Lane and Taylor arrive. I believe Taylor is the senior on-scene, and thus more-or-less in charge. He (and Lane) see that the door is open, all three proceed to enter the dwelling - Stancil checking to see if the door was left open, or was broken in, and secures the garage.
Regards,
Shodan
This is basically what I have been saying the entire time and I concur.
That’s definitely possible. Is checking whether the door was locked but left open SOP?
Not locked and left open - if it was locked and broken open, or left open. If it had been broken open, that would be further evidence that a crime was in progress, and I suspect Mr. Currie’s afternoon would have even less pleasant, a lot quicker. “Somebody broke in the garage door and he’s the only one in the house” is rather different than “he walked in the open door”.
I have been sort of in the same situaton as Currie in my misspent youth. I locked myself out of my folks’ house when I was home alone, and climbed up to my own bedroom window which I had left open, and a neighbor spotted me and called the cops. But the doors were all locked and closed, and they knocked on the door and I was able to produce ID almost instantly that had that address on it. But it was a low-crime suburb, and I am white as are my parents.
Regards,
Shodan
This is where things like doorbells and radios come in. If the door is closed, it should stay closed.
“Obviously, police can’t open a door and then use the door being open as evidence of an on-going burglary.”
I’ll read “can’t” as “shouldn’t”. 
We know even halfway decent, competent cops do stuff like this on a routine basis. (Of course, they’d be sputtering about proper protocol and the law were it a case of some (in their mind demented) member of law enforcement to employ these methods as it relates to something to do with their life, or that of a relative or friend or colleague, but … as a general rule, not something about which they need to worry.*)
“you with the face is wrong in her understanding of probable cause predicate: she thinks if the door was open, the officers still would not have been able to legally enter.”
To be sure, would depend on other factors, but we know the door being ajar combined with “unaccompanied brown person! … in *our *neighborhood! (gasp)” can be twisted into “reasonable suspicion!”. (In my experience, a majority of cops … and prosecutors for that matter … don’t care to recognize any difference whatever between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, or any need to worry about the former before you declare the latter. A good many don’t even care about taking a step further and lying about what did not exist. (If it is not true, make it true; the best lies involve the most shreds of truth. Yes, the door was open (omission: we’re the one who opened it).)
“Seems they are duty bound to determine that there is no one in the home who should not be there. Correct?”
Duty bound (but then most laypeople would be mightily surprised as to the legal obligations of the police). At any rate, no, not simply based the fact that a (gasp) unaccompanied brown person entered a home.
There’s no reason to think the door was closed, though, so this is a red herring. We have two people who say it was ajar, and one who says it was unsecured, versus no evidence at all that it was closed.
To assume it was closed requires making two unsupported assertions. First, that two officers are lying and one just didn’t mention it, and second, that because they are lying the opposite must be true. Point being, you are welcome to dismiss the police statement entirely on the grounds that you think they’re lying, but that doesn’t prove the truth of anything at all. It simply means then that you have no evidence at all about the state of the door.
Neither “unaccompanied” nor “brown” are relevant. “Unrecognised” is the relevant point. As yet, no-one’s provided any evidence for police wrongdoing, merely speculation that, if things they have no evidence for occurred, then they may have been wrong.
There’s less evidence that the police did anything wrong than that Currie was a burglar. Some consistency in standards here would be nice…
Or that the other officers had already entered thru the open door and then Stancil checked to see if the door had actually been locked.
All of the officers are still available to clarify this issue in court.
It doesn’t matter to YWTF though. According to YWTF, whether the door was open or not is not relevant to the discussion of whether the police should be able to enter - he thinks they should not. Of course this is incorrect but hey, what can you do.
I don’t think this will ever reach a courtroom. Currie hasn’t been charged with anything, and the family isn’t suing that I know of.
Come to think of it, I doubt Deshawn has been adopted, so the (former) foster family may not have standing to sue. Currie could, but he’s the only witness and he does not strike me as the most credible guy on earth.
Maybe they will sue and hope for a settlement, but I doubt it.
Regards,
Shodan
There has been lots and lots of very interesting speculation in this thread. The facts have been harder to come by. Given what I’ve read about the case so far, I believe that the police had reasonable suspicion and entered thru an open door. The 18yr old acted like an asshole. Maybe he believes all those hollyweird movie scenes where the self-proclaimed badass hero overpowers multiple police officers and escapes? In reality, there is no one to call, “CUT” or to reapply everyone’s makeup.
The chronology of events matter, believe it or not. Stacil reported he tested the door and THEN he reported the cops entering the door. You can’t just flip events around to make yourself feel better.
Stancil was the first officer on the scene. As he approached the door in question he watched as the other cops arrived and came up to join him. His report of the door’s status prior to touching it carries the most weight because the scene had not yet been disturbed.
But keep on denying what is damn well obvious. Watching yall tap dance like a bunch of nervous nellies is hilarious.
This is plausible, though it does seem to be an odd thing to check and note in your report.
I will say this, it is interesting how the 3 accounts differ in what the officers noticed and remembered about the event.
He reported that it was unsecured. That word doesn’t mean “closed”. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.