OK, I was misunderstanding you. Thanks.
Minty, Bricker
I do not ever remember reading a LA case, I thought it was because it was the one state whoes law was based on the French Civil system, as opposed to English Commom Law. Is my assumption incorrect? Does it make a difference in this case?
The civil code system doesn’t apply to criminal law. Criminal law in Louisiana, like criminal law almost everywhere in the U.S., is based on statutes. Also, Louisiana must comply with the U.S. Constitution with respect to those rights which are incorporated by the 14th Amendment.
Since most (all?) states now have civil law codes, the only difference between Louisiana and other states is that other states’ courts will usually accept common-law arguments, but Louisiana’s won’t. (AFAIK. IANAL. YMMV. TAFKAP. TANSTAAFL. HTHFATPASIHSTG.)
Actually, the Plain View Doctrine seemingly makes this merely redundant law.
Officers entering a home, for lawful reasons and/or under exigent circumstances can search your premises for their own safety. It’s a law enforcement standard practice. Now is where the definition of ‘search’ comes into play.
I think the term itself has been generally mischaracterized here.
If, in GaWd’s case, the PO’s entered his home and placed him into protective custody on a public complaint of his use of fireworks, there’s a reasonable suspicion that there may well be more fireworks laying about the house, and the officers have a duty to protect the remainder of the citizenry by placing into evidence, (or taking home to their friends and family) said fireworks. So long as said fireworks are not hidden from view. So the Black Cats on the sofa, they had him on, the M-80’s in the underwear drawer are safe. Unless there’s a warrant.
In the NO case, it appears that the officers in question, while looking for a suspect, did in fact have a right to be there, and exigent circumstances were present, and presumably, a person who may be a threat to unsuspecting officers could indeed hide in a closet. Once again, looking for a person in the underwear drawer would be a 5th amendment violation, and any proceeds from the search of the underwear drawer would be fruit of the poisonous tree.
Just one Investigators’ opinion, of course.
Nope, can’t get excited about this one.
The cops do have a fair degree of latitude once you invite them into your home. Not being a lawyer, let alone a Fourth Amendment lawyer, I’m not sure how far that latitude extends, but it’s there.
The solution, if you are concerned, is to not invite them in. Nothing wrong with conversing with the cops on the front lawn.
What? Did you expect to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Did you expect warrants to be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?
Where have you been the last 20 years?
Remember how, in grade school, one idiot could ruin a good thing for everyone? That’s what we have now. The idiots have ruined it for everyone.
We are becoming a police state. Get used to it, it’s not going to get any better.
When the economy melts down, we’ll probably need to give up a few more rights in order to protect ourselves from ourselves.
erm, that should read 4th amendment violation.
Be sure to open the door only long enough to step outside and shut the thing behind you quickly, too. If you get out of your car at a police stop, roll up the windows and shut the door behind you immediately. Always vocally refuse the ability to search or inspect, don’t waffle even a bit, and assert your privacy by shotting doors, locking them behind you, etc.
Leave the door open too long and they can “smell” things or see them. Now I’m not suggesting every cop is going to push the limits of his ability to search, and obviously a corrupt cop can pretty much directly make your life hell, but I think every citizen should be 100% aware that it is a cop’s job to enforce laws and bring those who break them to the courts. They’re not your friend, even if they say they’re only doing this to help you. They are allowed to lie when they question you. You simply should not give them any rights they don’t already have, which are a lot already. A joint in your car is yours whether or not it was your stupid pothead friend or the previous owner. Unless you are certain they can search your house, car, or vehicle, don’t let them in. And if they can search your house, you won’t be able to stop them anyway, so the rule of thumb should be to not let them in (unless you have to use force to stop them, in which case you’d better not).
Behave and state your refusal as assertively as you can without being a dick. You can cooperate with officers without giving up your own rights. Once you give them up, you can’t take them back so don’t make that mistake.
Just in the interests on having a complete and accurate statement here – because I don’t disagree with anything in this post – I would not that you can limit the scope of your consent to search, and can withdraw consent at any time.
For example, you may tell a police officer that you consent to his searching the passenger compartment, but not the trunk. Or you may give you consent to search the trunk and then withdraw it. As long as the search up until the point you have withdrawn consent has not yielded anything upon which probable cause may be established, your withdrawal of consent is effective in ending the search.
- Rick
While I agree that homes are granted a certain degree of protection, I have never seen an instance where a police officer accepted the polite response of"No, you may not search my car". In every case with which I am familiar, that response just increases suspicion. In fact I have even seen warrants issued on the (uncostitutional) basis that the defendent refused permission to search his car.
So while I agree with your statements in general (in this thread) I feel that trying to protect ones right to privacy is usually futile (with regard to vehicle search). If a police officer wants to look around your car, he is going to. One way or another.
Here’s a perfect example. A warrant is issued because their electric bill is too high and they might be growing pot.
This is probable cause?
Would you care to define what you believe “probable cause” means when used in legal analysis, Kansas Beekeeper?
I am willing to bet, to parapharse Inigo Montoya, that the phrase does not mean what you think it means.
- Rick
Not that I feel people should be arrested for pot, but as to the issue of probable cause, I think this quote from the first link you cited pretty much answers the question.
Well, in most cases, an application for a warrant based on the word of “an unidentified, confidential source” is good enough probable cause all by itself. The article doesn’t make it clear whether this was what enabled the subpeona of the electric company records, which despite my opposition to the war on drugs, is actually pretty ingenious. I don’t like the wandering around with a drug-sniffing dog, and I don’t like the emphasis placed on the trash going out in the morning, but overall, I don’t think anyone can object to this one too strongly.
But it does emphasize one of my concerns about the expansion of police powers: they already have enough perfectly legal and valid ways to do this sort of thing, even if it is all based on sheer and utter bullshit. They don’t need more.
Thanks for the clarification, Bricker, this is what I meant. You can’t take back giving them the right to search after they’ve found something.
I’ve never met a cop I disliked as a person, though I did meet one I was very close to disliking. But they are in a position of power over me and I find it important to respect and fear that power, the same as I would holding a dangerous weapon, or working with electricity. Leave nothing to chance.
Whether, given all the circumstances the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
It is more than bare suspicion.
Obvously this is just a matter of opinion, but I don’t think high power useage and taking the trash out are more than mere suspicion.
The drug sniffing dog in this case has proved itself unreliable. I’d be curious to know if there were any houses with high power uses that the drug sniffing dog didn’t hit on.
Am I missing something?
The only problem I can see is if the person who granted permission for the officers to enter did not, in fact, have authority to give permission. However, the article does not say whether that is the case or not.
Not too far off.
Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. The existence of probable cause is determined not by an individual weighing of each individual circumstance, but by examining the “totality-of-the-circumstances.” In determining probable cause, look to the totality of circumstances as they would be viewed by police officers trained in analyzing the observed conduct for the purposes of crime control.
In this case, you had the report of the confidential informant, the high electric bill, and the reaction of the drug-sniffing dog. There is no question that, as a matter of law, this evidence is sufficient to sustain probable cause.
- Rick