Just shows how much you know. The black and white striped shirt is appropriate for robbing banks, armored trucks and hamburger restaurants. The black turtleneck is what the wise cat burglar wears.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a underrated tactical garment, the turtleneck.
PSSSSSST!
I don’t actually have to put down my can of pepper spray to attempt a de-escalation of the situation. If it works, everyone is happier in the end, if it doesn’t work, you go the other way with it.
Ok, so that’s one thing.
Asking the guy to sit down while they look through the house doesn’t negate taking a conciliatory approach. And, as you point out, this is still partway through the situation - starting off on a different foot may have meant that Currie wouldn’t have refused.
I actually have less difficulty with this when it comes to the point of threats and aggressive behaviour, though of course context applies heavily. My arguments have been about the lead-up to this point in the situation, as I’ve pointed out specifically twice prior to this now.
“We’ve had a report that there may have been a break-in here. For your own safety, sir, we’d like you to sit here while my colleague goes to make sure there isn’t anyone still in the house that could prove a risk to yourself or to us.”
Beyond, of course, the point that acting differently up to that point could well have resulted in different behaviour even if they’d said exactly the same thing right then.
In your experience, how many police officers loved doing paperwork? How many police reports recounted every single detail, with specificity, in a well-written document that was not subject to any kind of interpretation or rephrasing?
And, in your experience, how many street officers, not detectives or commanders, how many police officers working these kinds of calls were so well versed in the nuances of the 4th Amendment that they would know the line to draw that may be the difference between a valid search under 4th Amendment law and not, especially in a case such as this?
Because I’ll tell you, in my experience, the odds of any police officer knowing that the single detail that would make a difference for 4th Amendment analysis on a case of a reported burglary without additional signs of breaking in, would be slim to none. Hell, I didn’t, and I’m guessing you didn’t, know that, and we’ve been practicing law and the 4th Amendment for over a decade.
I think it is completely unbelievable the a police officer would not only know the details of this part of 4th Amendment law in this specific area, but then they would spend the time and have the skills to write a report that deliberately leaves the issue vague enough for interpretation.
While I’m sure the police in this case would be thrilled to know that so many people have such high respect for their skills and knowledge on a case that doesn’t even result in charges and is seemingly resolved with an interview with the parents and kids, I think it stretches the bounds of imagination to do so. Again, we don’t know the police officers in this case, but given my experience, I would be flabbergasted to think they had the skills, wherewithal, and knowledge to deliberately obfuscate the 4th amendment analysis in this case.
He/she/it is deliberately antagonistic and insulting, and then shows shock and arrogance that people don’t like it. I can picture him/her/it throwing up their hands and saying “what did I do?” every time.
Consider that the cops felt the need to tell Currie to “simmer down.”
Doesn’t that indicate that he was already at or near a boiling point when that occurred?
Do you have a problem with them asking to see his hands as he descended the stair case? That was their first encounter with him. Is that the point where Currie went off on them?
We can talk about a perfect world scenario, but we’re really stuck with the facts here, and the best (only) source of the facts is a handful of police reports.
instead of
Regards,
Shodan
If your assessment is accurate, then that would mean cops are too ignorant to know when certain activities are inadvisable because they are unconstitutional.
So…
Why should such ignoramuses be entrusted to serve and protect? These people are given the power to make life-threatening decisions, but for some reason, it’s unimaginable to you that they would know what criteria must be met for warrantless entry? I don’t know if this is more of an indictment on cops or the limits of your imagination.
Good idea, let’s only have Supreme Court judges investigating crime, as they’re the only ones who can make a definitive judgement on what is or isn’t constitutional.
Please, for once, at least attempt to think. Some people find it a pleasant, refreshing experience. I know I’d find it pleasant and refreshing if you were to think.
Oh, is *that *what “Regards” means?
Do you imagine that every police officer is an expert on every situation that the 4th Amendment could possibly apply? Do you honestly think that the officers in this case came to the conclusion that it took hours of research for Bricker and I, two lawyers who have actually practiced 4th Amendment law for decades, to come to? And then, with that awareness of an obscure facet of 4th Amendment law and no question as to the rightness or wrongness of their analysis (an analysis that even Supreme Court judges can differ on), then take action and write a report on a non-arrest, all in an hour or so?
Yes, police officers have a general knowledge of the 4th Amendment and what is proper or not. But it would be shocking if the specific analysis to this case, which took us days to go through in this thread, was right there at the forefront of the police officers’ mind when they entered the building.
Maybe my experience is different. Maybe police officers in Virginia where Bricker practiced were constitutional experts and had an incredible thirst for legal research rather than policing. But in my experience, I think it’s silly to expect police officers to know the law with the specificity and assuredness that you seem to grant them.
So, your advice to policemen is: When in doubt about a citizen’s constitutional rights. err on the side of violating them.
Yes, that’s exactly what he said. If we assume that you are as intelligent as the average police officer, it’s no wonder they would struggle with understanding the full body of caselaw surrounding the fourth amendment, since you fail to comprehend a single sentence.
My God you are dumb.
I expect them to be experts compared to the average person on the street! Christ Jesus, even DeShawn Currie knew enough to ask why they were in his house without a warrant, and he hasn’t even graduated from high school. Knowing what elements of a crime need to be in place before a cop can enter into someone’s house is not astrophysics. And if it’s too much for them to retain all these details and nuances in their wee little skulls, then they need to err on the side of caution. Not act and then hope for the best.
Why are you acting as though these cops wouldn’t have had access to legal counsel? Or at least a legally savvy supervisor?
It’s suspicious that the last statement–the one that reveals the truth about the outside door to the garage–is at the bottom of the report although it came from the first officer on the scene, while the others that emphasis the ajar interior door conveniently are at the top. It doesn’t take a Svengali to pull off this slight of hand; only someone smart enough to know cops can’t enter a home without probable cause for a break-in.
I’m sorry this knowledge somehow escaped you in your legal training. But you know, I’m a veterinarian and knew enough to at least question their actions. ::shrug::
Oh, I see. You’re projecting your ignorance on to them. The problem here is that you assume anything you don’t know is obscure. Any lawyer who has studied constitutional law should at least be aware that warrantless search and seizure must meet certain requirements to be legal.
First of all, who is “us”? You haven’t done any research or legal analysis; all you’ve done is argue (in insulting fashion) against my own research and analysis. Bricker is the only one who has made a good faith effort to answer my challenge, and he never found any case law that found a nonspecific 911 call and an ajar door represents probable cause.
I don’t know why it took you guys so long to have your little a-ha moment. To me, all this means is that you and Bricker are not the best subject matter experts on this issue. There are other lawyers in internet land who couldn’t care less whether the door was ajar or not, because there is reason to believe they acted unlawfully regardless.
You really are a special kind of special if you still haven’t realised that there’s absolutely no evidence that the door was closed or that his rights were violated. You have all of this entirely backwards, you are assuming they were wrong and expecting us to prove otherwise rather than offering even a single shred of support for your own position.
Knowing that you need exigent circumstances to enter a home without a warrant is a world apart from knowing that, if a neighbor reports seeing someone they didn’t know, there are no other signs of a break in, and you don’t hear anything coming from inside, that whether to door is open/closed is the thing that could make all the difference in the world as to whether or not you have those exigent circumstances.
I would guess that between you, me, Bricker, and anyone else in the thread who bothered, that we all conducted maybe 6 hours of research on this one topic, and there is still some disagreement on the issue. Yet you seem to think the police officers should know, right off the top of their head, the exact same thing.
I see your critical thinking skills haven’t improved as this thread went on.
Because the legal counsel they have are the district attorneys, who, in a vast majority of cases, don’t get consulted before the entry to the house is made or the police report is written.
Or do you think they got on the phone with a legal expert, who off the top of their head gave them the answer about the door, and then they did it and wrote their report.
I find that idea implausible.
If you think that not knowing the nuanced details of the law as it relates to this particular set of facts is something even a lawyer, let alone a police officer, should know off the top of their head, then you have a severe misunderstanding of law school, lawyers, and what they do. Which wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
The person who was quoting law that was no longer applicable in a vast majority of states in this very thread is now bragging about your legal knowledge. Thanks for the smile.
Duplicate