I just thought it should be mentioned that the officers are still available to clear up any ambiguity or misconception about what was in their written reports. And could do so under oath.
Unsecured doesn’t mean open either.
And wishing for something to be true, doesn’t make it true either.
Why is that relevant?
Hahahaha. Damn well obvious to you does not mean it’s damn well obvious to me.
Then what point are you demanding that everyone accept? Was the door closed or was the door open?
No.
First, the police don’t actually have a “duty” to do anything like that, in the sense that they cannot be sued if they fail to.
Now, I would hope that the police are motivated to investigate further, but any such investigation must respect the limits of the Constitution.
If they don’t see any evidence that there was a break-in, then they can’t enter.
(There are other reasons they could enter: under the community caretaker exception, for example, if they had reason to suspect that someone’s life or health was in danger, they could enter; their entry would be motivated not by the desire to enforce the criminal law but by the desire to assist. Obviously that’s not in play here.)
Currie could also swear under oath that the door was closed.
His testimony, plus the discrepancies in the police report, plus the low likelihood that Currie would fail to close the door at the precise time these cops decided a warrantless entry was in order, would probably make a jury or judge disinclined to take the cops at their word. “Heavy burden” not met.
Yall seem to think the legality of their actions hinges solely upon this door being ajar. I think there’s plenty of reason to consider this wishful thinking.
Stancil gave no indication in his report the door was ajar. He tested it to see that it was locked, which implies it was closed.
Yes, reaching this conclusion requires engaging your frontal lobe a bit. And maybe you don’t have the capacity for this. But the conclusion is clear to anyone who can read and draw inferences: When Stancil checked the door it was closed.
The debate seems to be about whether the door was open or shut. Either seems plausible to me; I can both see a cop turning the knob of an open door to see if it was unlocked, and can see a cop opening a shut door that was unlocked.
According to Bricker, whether the door was open is pivotal to whether the entry was permissible.
SO WHY DOESN’T STANCIL SPECIFY IN HIS REPORT WHETHER THE DOOR WAS OPEN?
These guys, I tell you.
“Implies”? “Draw inferences”? You’re a hoot. You made up your mind that the door was closed. You’re entitled to your opinion but you seem to be having a little trouble forcing your opinion on everyone else.
Solely? No.
You’ll note that I specifically said that I was comparing it to the situation before the police felt it was necessary to cuff and pepper spray the guy. Because I assumed otherwise this would be your argument. I guess I didn’t do a good enough job of seeing it off at the pass.
Unless, I guess, you are comparing it to the state of things prior to the police feeling the need to subdue Currie. Are you?
Uh, yes. And a racist. And a hater.
After that, they will start to treat you mean!
And do we want cops skirting so closely to the edge of legality that a mere 4 inch gap stands in the way between violating someone’s civil rights and apprehending a suspect?
If the house of cards so easily collapses when a single element is thrown into question, then it wasn’t much of a house to begin with.
He could, and then there would be some actual evidence that the door was closed. But, unless you’ve heard something he’s said but not shared with the class, then we don’t have that evidence.
There’s no discrepancy in the reports. Two report that the door was open, the third that it was unsecured. They do not contradict each other.
Now, a judge may choose to disbelieve the cops. But then, he has no information on whether the door was open or closed, so cannot rule based on that.
No, some of us think their actions may well have been legal even if the door was closed. But there’s no question that they were legal if it was open. As you have been shown with repeated citations, despite the fact that common sense should show that they were doing their job properly by entering and securing the property. Not that common sense has a lot to do with the law, but if it had turned out that what they did was illegal, then the law would need changing.
No-one’s rights were violated, except possibly those of the cop who was threatened and grabbed by Currie. He has the right to do his job without receiving abuse or violence.
“We” don’t seem to mind. Legislation, rules, and regulations were written, discussed, and passed. That’s usually were the bright lines are drawn. If they ever rewrite the rules to allow you, or anyone else, immunity to arbitrarily alter the edge of legality based on a current whim or recently hurt feelings, drop me a personal message. I like to keep abreast of stuff like that.
Okay. So, if I go break into a house, just remember to not leave the door ajar. Thanks!
As I read it, the knob that Stancil twisted was on the outside door leading into the garage, and the door from the garage to the house was the one that was left open. What would the cops have done if Currie had locked the outer door behind him when he entered? Would they legally have been able to break in?
If your interpretation of the door is correct (and it very well might), then Stancil entered the property (the garage) through a closed door. It doesn’t matter whether if it was locked or not. An unlocked door doesn’t anyone the right to enter.
Your scenario is bad for the cops because it implies their evidence of a break-in comes from a door that they should have never had access to.
Please, as has been mentioned repeatedly, explain why you think that the police went through any closed doors. There’s nothing in the police report, or any other released evidence, that suggests they did.
I mean, we all know you have a history of making stuff up to incriminate people you don’t like, but you still need to be called on it.