And woke him at 1am. I’d be pissed, too, even if what the cops did was legal. I rather hope it wasn’t. I’m sure the law various by state, however.
Don’t be ridiculous. If the shot his dog and raped his wife, he’d be doing a lot more than just being angry about it.
I suspect that “nothing came of it” only because they knew their claim of probable cause was bullshit.
I’m curious about the answer to the OP’s question #2.
I just love the old dynamic of someone getting pissed because someone got caught doing something wrong.
Shame, shame on the people that caught the other people being wrong.
Three little words: Beware of dog. Get a sign and put it on your fence. It may have a deterrent effect on criminals but it DEFINITELY has a deterrent effect on the cops and they will ring your doorbell first IME.
The cops in my jurisdiction are pretty lax about arresting kids for drinking providing they aren’t disruptive, beligerent, or driving a vehicle. (Or brown.)
Or it makes them go in with guns already drawn, jumpy and ready to shoot anything that moves…
What if the poolhouse door had been closed and locked?
Wouldn’t the cops have needed a warrant to enter then? Unless they “heard beer being poured down the toilet”. Maybe they could bust in then. Or do they have to suspect a felony?
I suspect you are correct.
California v. Ciraolo, Florida v. Riley, United States v. Dunn – the police can look over a fence into curtilage, using a plane or helicopter, or their own legal position outside the fence.
Their looking at the three men who appeared to be under 21 and were drinking beer gives them probable cause.
(Whether they could actually see the beer is a question of fact – meaning the judge at a suppression hearing could determine that they could, or could not, have actually seen the cans under those specific conditions).
Can they enter the pool house? Maybe. They may claim exigent circumstances – the possibility of destruction of the evidence, in this case the beer.
I’d want to know whether your particular state restricts warrantless entries to only felonies.
I know what you’re saying. I’m just telling you how it is around here. It’s always the “of age” person who gets the charge. If you’re over 21 and drinking with under age people, you’re in trouble. I don’t think they even care who bought the alcohol.
Hung on to this one since January, eh? That’s some discipline.
…
I appreciate your knowledge of criminal law, but I sure hope you put up a bit more of a fight for your clients. What makes you think they “appeared to be under 21?” That’s very hard to judge so precisely, and it would be there burden to justify what they did.
Looking over the fence isn’t the proble, but entering a fenced yard certainly could be.
It’s been almost 20 years since I practiced criminal law, so I’m a bit rusty, but I would be surprised is this conduct held up to a challenge.
I spoke with a friend who is a retired cop last night. Not a lawyer, for sure, but he has a pretty good understanding of what is allowed and what isn’t. He said he would never have jumped the fence, let alone entered the poolhouse without either permission or a warrant. He also knows my property and agreed that it would be a difficult for the police to argue that they could tell that the three men were under 21 from the sidewalk, looking across the patio into the enclosed poolhouse. He agreed that the cops overstepped their authority, which is probably why they decided to not write any citations. He also said we could have likely had the case thrown out, or won if it went that far, due to an improper search and violation of the 4th amendment. Again, I’m glad we didn’t have to go down that road, spending the money, time and emotional effort.
He also guessed that the cops got angry and jumped the fence because they were told to stay on the sidewalk and asked if they had a warrant. Cops don’t like attitude, nor do they like their authority to be questioned. Too bad, that’s part of the job, IMHO.
Underage drinking is a summary offense in PA, and there are fairly tight restrictions on what cops can do on private property regarding summary offenses. On a public street - a different matter. I am not a lawyer, but a quick internet search shows that in my state cops can pretty easily bust outdoor underage parties, they have to get permission from a property owner to enter a building. In this instance, the fenced back yard and pool house are somewhere in between a house and an open yard or field.
For the umpteenth time all I can think is “You guys really do have a fucked up country”.
A 20 year old man drinking a beer in a back garden, what a heinous crime indeed. Oh well, at least they didn’t execute him, they must have been the good cops.
I agree 100% Raising the drinking age to 21 has been a very destructive policy.
Or the OP’s son is white.
I agree with your comment (the last sentence in the quote box). The notion that cops might get upset if someone asked them if they had a warrant, and told them to stay off their property otherwise? Yeah, if they’re so tough, they ought to be able to deal with it.
Every determination of probable cause is fact-dependent. But as a general rule, when the actors in question are in fact under 21, I’d say the burden is not going to rest on the police officer to show that they LOOKED under 21. And remember, probable cause is not the claim that the officer could, with any kind of certainty, determine “under 21.” Rather it’s simply the claim that that at least one of them looked like they were probably under 21.
Once they have probable cause, then the warrantless entry becomes the question, Again I’m answering this without benefit of know the state, or the precise details of the physical layout, but from the description, the poolhouse sounds to me like the outbuildings that the Court decided did not have full Fourth Amendment protections in the same way that a home does.
Boy, the hyperbole is strong in you, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t begin to go that far. Every country has its own unique mix of personal, property and legal rights and restrictions. Yes, the USA’s drinking age is completely idiotic, but I can think of any number of freedoms and customs we have that many countries do not. If you care to share where you are from, I’d be glad to look up some stupid laws and restrictions.
Wouldn’t the standard be more like “reasonable chance they MIGHT be under 21”?
Seems to me that any legal standard would reflect the fact when it comes to judging age there has got to be a good bit of latitude.
Now, if those standards are different for checking party goers on the beach vs somebody in a bar vs somebody walking down the street vs somebody on the front lawn vs somebody hiding out behind the house I would understand.