wtf? We Dont Need No Stinkin 4th Amendment?

[FBD]

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html



INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
-----------------------------------------

[Deepsepia]

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

I haven't read the decision, so I don't know what they cite, but the decision is probably correct, both from a legal standpoint and a public policy standpoint.

It does happen that police on occasion conduct searched that they're not permitted to -- and then the evidence is thrown out, and the police may be subject to sanctions. Cops may use inaccurate information to get a warrant, for example, or they may have the wrong address on the warrant.

What is never done, so far as I know, is that you get to argue with the police and to use force to prevent them carrying out their duties, if you feel that they don't have a legal right to do what they're doing. Fourth Amendment protections (and other Constitutional protections for that matter) do not entitle you to "figure it out for yourself" and fight off the authorities.



But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

I'd like to know what "the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling" actually is. The problem, obviously, is that the person in the house is in no position to determine what is "lawful" or "unlawful" about police entry . . . that's a determination to be made by the Courts, not the an interested party in the heat of the moment.

[Acid Trip]

Unlawfully enter my house and you'll get your head blown off. That rule applies to everyone equally.

As for Deeps defense of "the person in the house is in no position to determine what is "lawful" or "unlawful" about police entry", well that's just horseshit. That's like saying because I'm not a doctor I have no clue was to whether I'm well or unwell. Since I'm not a fireman I cannot tell what is a fire and what is not. Since I'm not a judge or lawyer I can't possibly know that a warrant-less cop can be refused entry into my house? Please.

Hopefully you see how ridiculous your statement sounds.

[Deepsepia]

Unlawfully enter my house and you'll get your head blown off. That rule applies to everyone equally.

As for Deeps defense of "the person in the house is in no position to determine what is "lawful" or "unlawful" about police entry", well that's just horseshit. That's like saying because I'm not a doctor I have no clue was to whether I'm well or unwell. Since I'm not a fireman I cannot tell what is a fire and what is not. Since I'm not a judge or lawyer I can't possibly know that a warrant-less cop can be refused entry into my house? Please.

Hopefully you see how ridiculous your statement sounds.

No, my statement is the law as far as I know it.

You don't get to decide to resist police force, even when they're wrong.

For example, Police do get the wrong address on warrants. It has happened before, it will happen again.

There are sanctions against them, and an award of damages, when and if they make a mistake like this.

What you don't get to do in such a situation is to use force against them-- doing that will get you shot.

You do not get to make a judgment call about whether or not the cops have a legitimate right to enter the house-- they must have a warrant, but you don't have the right to know what the grounds were for the warrant -- they may be completely false, you still don't have a right to resist.

Cops can be wrong. But you don't get to make that call.

Very recently, there was a case where a guy was busted for downloading child porn. They'd gotten the warrant against him based on the IP address . . . they serve the warrant, haul away the guy and all his computer stuff-- only later does it emerge that he'd left his WiFi connection open, and an neighbor was using it.

Neither he, nor anyone else who is "actually innocent" gets a right to use force against the Police for that reason.

That's not "my opinion" that's the law.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

No, my statement is the law as far as I know it.

You don't get to decide to resist police force, even when they're wrong.

For example, Police do get the wrong address on warrants. It has happened before, it will happen again.

There are sanctions against them, and an award of damages, when and if they make a mistake like this.

What you don't get to do in such a situation is to use force against them-- doing that will get you shot.

You do not get to make a judgment call about whether or not the cops have a legitimate right to enter the house-- they must have a warrant, but you don't have the right to know what the grounds were for the warrant -- they may be completely false, you still don't have a right to resist.

Cops can be wrong. But you don't get to make that call.

Very recently, there was a case where a guy was busted for downloading child porn. They'd gotten the warrant against him based on the IP address . . . they serve the warrant, haul away the guy and all his computer stuff-- only later does it emerge that he'd left his WiFi connection open, and an neighbor was using it.

Neither he, nor anyone else who is "actually innocent" gets a right to use force against the Police for that reason.

That's not "my opinion" that's the law.

This ^^^

You want to use deadly force against a cop because you think it's 'your right'? See you in the morgue then.

[Acid Trip]

For example, Police do get the wrong address on warrants. It has happened before, it will happen again.

And if I shoot a Policeman who breaks into my house with a false warrant nothing happens to me because I can defend my home with lethal force against intruders. This has happened before in Texas and the Police were found in the wrong.

Read the 4th Amendment for ONLY THE WORDS ON THE PAGE. Don't make inferences and judgement calls based on your opinion.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How you see that as "You have no right to question any policeman who wants to illegally enter your house" is beyond me. It clearly says you are secure in your person/house/effects against unreasonable searches. Secure meaning you don't have to let the cop in without a warrant. It DOES NOT say "you have let him in, do his deal, then fight it in court later".

Cops are supposed to follow the law and they should have know he can't open a closed door without a warrant.

[Acid Trip]

This ^^^

You want to use deadly force against a cop because you think it's 'your right'? See you in the morgue then.

Deadly force IS my right against intruders. Just because they are wearing a uniform doesn't mean they aren't an intruder (intruder is clearly defined). This has been upheld in Texas courts.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Deadly force IS my right against intruders. Just because they are wearing a uniform doesn't mean they aren't an intruder (intruder is clearly defined). This has been upheld in Texas courts.

Whatever you say :thumbsup:

[Acid Trip]

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

If I say you can't come in my house and you then open the door anyway you are now a burglar. It doesn't matter if the person I turn away is the cable guy or a warrant-less cop because the law applies equally to all parties.

A warrant would made this a non-story but the cop disregarded the word of law and that's where the problem started. So because a policeman doesn't understand the law we should make special provisions to the 4th amendment? Hahaha. That's a good one.

[Muddy]

:machinegun:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Maybe you see some secret code in that statute but I sure don't...would you mind pointing out where it says you are allowed to impede a police officer who is doing his job? Especially where it says you are allowed to justifiably allowed to use deadly force against said police officer? :-k

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Can the Police Search Your House Without a Warrant?
MICHELLE KAMINSKY - OCT 2007
Just from watching legal dramas on television, many people know that the police need a warrant to search your house. This is accurate, for the most part, as the Fourth Amendment protects private citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. But did you also know that under the exclusionary rule generally anything seized during an illegal search cannot be used as evidence in court?


As a result of the exclusionary rule, there are important exceptions to the warrant requirement that have developed under the law that everyone should know about.

Let's start with the basics first. What is a search warrant? If a judge is convinced that there is "probable cause" of either criminal activity or contraband at a place to be searched, he or she will issue and sign a search warrant—a court order that allows the police to search a specific location for specified objects at a specific time.

That's a lot of specifics, to be sure, but they are important legal distinctions. This wording means that if officers have a warrant to search your house, they don't get automatic authority to also search your car parked outside on the curb; or, if the object specified is a stolen painting, they can't rummage through your underwear drawer, unless, of course, the painting could fit into that space.

Note that you may ask to read the search warrant or have the officer read it to you.

There are four main circumstances in which a warrant is not required for police to search your house:

1. Consent. If the person who is in control of the property consents to the search without being coerced or tricked into doing so, a search without a warrant is valid. Note that police do not have to tell you that you have the right to refuse a search, but you do. Also, note that if you have a roommate, he or she can consent to a search of the common areas of your dwelling (kitchen, living room), but not to your private areas (bedroom, for instance). On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently ruled that one spouse cannot consent to the search of a house on behalf of the other.

2. Plain View. If a police officer already has the right to be on your property and sees contraband or evidence of a crime that is clearly visible, that object may be lawfully seized and used as evidence. For example, if the police are in your house on a domestic violence call and see marijuana plants on the windowsill, the plants can be seized as evidence.

3. Search Incident to Arrest. If you are being arrested in your house, police officers may search for weapons or other accomplices to protect their safety (known as a "protective sweep"), or they may otherwise search to prevent the destruction of evidence.

4. Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape. A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise.

So what should you do if the police show up at your house "just wanting to look around?" It's not in your best interest to deny them access because there may be extenuating circumstances that you don't know about; you certainly don't want to risk physical injury or being charged with interfering with a police investigation when you didn't have anything to hide in the first place.

However, do make it clear that you are not consenting to the search. Ask the officers for identification and an explanation as to why they are there and what they're looking for. Also, write down details of the search as soon as possible, in case you need them later.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your


I don't think any of these things were true in this situation, the cops had no right IMO

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your


I don't think any of these things were true in this situation, the cops had no right IMO

It still doesn't matter...look at section 4 from what you posted:


So what should you do if the police show up at your house "just wanting to look around?" It's not in your best interest to deny them access because there may be extenuating circumstances that you don't know about; you certainly don't want to risk physical injury or being charged with interfering with a police investigation when you didn't have anything to hide in the first place.

However, do make it clear that you are not consenting to the search. Ask the officers for identification and an explanation as to why they are there and what they're looking for. Also, write down details of the search as soon as possible, in case you need them later.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

thats their recommendation ;)

[Hugh_Janus]

wow.... so an asshole cop can bust into your house for no reason at all and there's nowt you can do about it? Fuck that! If anyone comes into my gaff uninvited, they're getting a bat wrapped 'round their head

[Deepsepia]

And if I shoot a Policeman who breaks into my house with a false warrant nothing happens to me because I can defend my home with lethal force against intr

And you go to jail for that.

You don't have the right to decide that you think the cops are in the wrong and disobey. There are often things that are incorrect on warrants. Someone may have the wrong address. Quite frequently there are folks with similar names living in close proximity -- think of how many "Juan Gonzalez"s there are

You have the right to go to Court afterwards for redress.

"Police, Open Up" is not a "suggestion". Its not an invitation to discuss the rights and wrongs of a case (and the Police neither know nor should they engage in a discussion of the case against you-- "tell it to the Judge" is their only answer.)

The Fourth Amendment protects you against warrantless searches . . . it does NOT authorize you to use force against a Police Officer going about his business, whether he's right or wrong.

You will not succeed with a "defending my home" argument when you shoot a cop acting with a warrant, whether you think he's justified or not-- if you're a Texan, you'll find yourself sometime later strapped to a gurney, contemplating that error.

Police work would be effectively impossible if citizens responded to police orders with force. The law recognizes that cops get it wrong sometimes -- why shouldn't they, everyone gets it wrong sometimes -- the redress for this is in the Courts.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Also don't forget the fact that police serving warrants always identify themselves as law enforcement (even in "no knock" warrants the police identify themselves after busting in the door) so using the "I thought they were intruders and afraid for my life" defense won't hold water.

[Deepsepia]

Also don't forget the fact that police serving warrants always identify themselves as law enforcement (even in "no knock" warrants the police identify themselves after busting in the door) so using the "I thought they were intruders and afraid for my life" defense won't hold water.

Yes, exactly. That "Police, open up" announcement activates a whole bunch of legal obligations. It does also raise the thorny issue of "what if the folks making that announcement aren't actually Police?". That does happen -- common when gangs rip off drug houses, for example.


wow.... so an asshole cop can bust into your house for no reason at all and there's nowt you can do about it? Fuck that! If anyone comes into my gaff uninvited, they're getting a bat wrapped 'round their head

No, a cop cannot "bust into your house for no reason at all" -- to enter your home he needs a warrant, which means a Judge has to sign off on it, and the State has to present evidence to support that warrant. If they're actually lying, there are big sanctions, not just for the cop, but for the Prosecutor who signed off on the application for a warrant.

The State doesn't authorize the Police to enter someone's home "just because" -- its a very big intrusion, and Judges don't write a "blank check" on these things.

[FBD]

Let's get back to the case at hand - somebody called the cops because people were arguing out front. When they came and nobody was out front and the people living there said "there's no issue here," the cops busted their way into the home saying "Yes, THERE IS." And they made an issue of it. There was no warrant, they had no f'n right to bust down anybody's door.

Just because "yall cant fuck with the po-liece" doesnt mean that you have no fourth amendment rights.

Illegal search and seizure protects against cops abusing their authority. This judge's decision is telling people (and cops, especially) that police are above the law and they dont even necessarily have to get their information right to feel justified in bashing down your door for a peek at....what, exactly?

Both this man AND his wife told the police there was no issue - why did they feel compelled to exert far more authority then they have and bust a door down - because cops get what cops want, when they want it?





And this judge should be kneecapped for trying to give lip service to the fourth amendment in his pithy bench-assessment while at the same time issuing a ruling that tramples on it. Nice going, hypocrite.

[Acid Trip]

And you go to jail for that.

"Police, Open Up" is not a "suggestion". Its not an invitation to discuss the rights and wrongs of a case (and the Police neither know nor should they engage in a discussion of the case against you-- "tell it to the Judge" is their only answer.)



I never said a cops announcement was a suggestion so where are you getting that shit from? I said an unannounced and warrant-less cop can be shot and killed like any other intruder. It was just an example. There was a Texas case where a warrant-less, unannounced cop was killed by the homeowner (he thought the cop was a burglar). The homeowner was found to not have violated any laws for the very reasons I mentioned: the cop entered unannounced and without a warrant thus making him uninvited and a intruder.

I'm just saying the person's 4th Amendment rights were violated by the cop perusing him into his house after the door was shut. If you don't think his 4th Amendment rights were violated I've got nothing to say to you.

[Deepsepia]

I never said a cops announcement was a suggestion so where are you getting that shit from?

From you



How you see that as "You have no right to question any policeman who wants to illegally enter your house" is beyond me. It clearly says you are secure in your person/house/effects against unreasonable searches. Secure meaning you don't have to let the cop in without a warrant. It DOES NOT say "you have let him in, do his deal, then fight it in court later".

If a cop shows up on your doorstep, says "Police, Open Up", you have to open up. You may believe the warrant he has is wrong.

You do, in fact, have to "let him do his deal" and then "fight it in court later".

Let's take a very simple and common error.

Your name is "Joe Smith". Cop shows ups at your door with a warrant for another Joe Smith.

Do you

A) Use force to prevent him from executing the warrant?
or
B) Go with him and clear up the error in Court?

There is only one correct answer to this one . . .

[Hugh_Janus]

No, a cop cannot "bust into your house for no reason at all" -- to enter your home he needs a warrant, which means a Judge has to sign off on it, and the State has to present evidence to support that warrant. If they're actually lying, there are big sanctions, not just for the cop, but for the Prosecutor who signed off on the application for a warrant.

The State doesn't authorize the Police to enter someone's home "just because" -- its a very big intrusion, and Judges don't write a "blank check" on these things.
to legally enter your home they need a warrant, yes. I'd have no problem with that, but the article says you can't even stop an officer who's entering your home "for no reason at all" Or prevent an officer who'sentering your home illegally.... fuck that!

[Deepsepia]

to legally enter your home they need a warrant, yes. I'd have no problem with that, but the article says you can't even stop an officer who's entering your home "for no reason at all" Or prevent an officer who'sentering your home illegally.... fuck that!

The point is that you don't get to make the call whether a cop is acting legally or illegally.

You might imagine a situation where a cop pounds on your door, demands entry and when you say "do you have a warrant?" he says "No, I'm doing this just because I feel like it"-- but that never happens. Cops acting on warrants have to be obeyed, and if there's an error in the warrant, that's something you take up later. There's a public safety dimension to the requirement that you obey police officers, right or wrong . . . we don't get to argue with the cops, that's what the Courts are for. Remember that the cop himself often knows very little about the legal background to a warrant.

it would be extraordinarily rare for a single cop to serve a warrant. If a cop has a search warrant, there are almost certainly two or more cops, and unless you're got a true police conspiracy, they're not going to be colluding on a home invasion.

You don't get to make the call as to whether the cop is acting legally or not in executing the warrant, outside of a few very unusual situations. There are occasions when cops do things which put them beyond the character of a police officer, at which point you could resist violently.

Perhaps the most common such situation is where a cop pulls a woman over and then rapes her. That has happened, and a woman would have a legitimate defense for violent resistance . . . but the distinction here is that "rape" is never a legitimate police function. There are no valid "rape warrants", so there's no presumption that the cop was acting on police business. But if the cop has a search warrant, even if its wrong-- that's legitimate police business.

Refusing a cop entrance when he is going about his business, whether the specifics are right or wrong, is something that'll get you shot or behind bars.

[Pony]

No, a cop cannot "bust into your house for no reason at all"


In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.


That's the only issue I have with this. (in bold) In this particular case they used the officer did have a good reason to enter the house, to check on the well being of the wife.
Other than that, in any case it's always a bad idea to physically try and block an officer from entering your home.

[Hugh_Janus]

The point is that you don't get to make the call whether a cop is acting legally or illegally.

You might imagine a situation where a cop pounds on your door, demands entry and when you say "do you have a warrant?" he says "No, I'm doing this just because I feel like it"-- but that never happens. Cops acting on warrants have to be obeyed, and if there's an error in the warrant, that's something you take up later. There's a public safety dimension to the requirement that you obey police officers, right or wrong . . . we don't get to argue with the cops, that's what the Courts are for. Remember that the cop himself often knows very little about the legal background to a warrant.

it would be extraordinarily rare for a single cop to serve a warrant. If a cop has a search warrant, there are almost certainly two or more cops, and unless you're got a true police conspiracy, they're not going to be colluding on a home invasion.

You don't get to make the call as to whether the cop is acting legally or not in executing the warrant, outside of a few very unusual situations. There are occasions when cops do things which put them beyond the character of a police officer, at which point you could resist violently.

Perhaps the most common such situation is where a cop pulls a woman over and then rapes her. That has happened, and a woman would have a legitimate defense for violent resistance . . . but the distinction here is that "rape" is never a legitimate police function. There are no valid "rape warrants", so there's no presumption that the cop was acting on police business. But if the cop has a search warrant, even if its wrong-- that's legitimate police business.

Refusing a cop entrance when he is going about his business, whether the specifics are right or wrong, is something that'll get you shot or behind bars.
like I said before, if they have a warrant, then there's no problem.

my problem is what pony said up there^

let's use a similar scenario as one you posted.

Cop knocks on door, woman answers, she's alone and is uncomfortable letting the cop in, but obliged to because of some bullshit he made up as a reason to go in. Cop then rapes her.

She can't refusde the cop entrance because she feels uncomfortable with his presence as it's illegal:-s

[Deepsepia]

like I said before, if they have a warrant, then there's no problem.

my problem is what pony said up there^

let's use a similar scenario as one you posted.

Cop knocks on door, woman answers, she's alone and is uncomfortable letting the cop in, but obliged to because of some bullshit he made up as a reason to go in. Cop then rapes her.

She can't refusde the cop entrance because she feels uncomfortable with his presence as it's illegal:-s


If the cop doesn't have a warrant, she doesn't have to open the door.

However, if the cop has a warrant that's incorrect for some reason-- wrong person, wrong address, wrong facts -- she does have to open the door. The courts are very specific that you don't get some magical exception because the cops are wrong. Let's say the cops get a warrant because they think you're distributing meth. They enter the house, don't find meth, but do find an illegal gun. So long as they didn't lie to get the warrant, the gun is admissible -- moral of the story: cops have to act in good faith, but they don't have to be "right"

The police themselves have instructions for motorists in these situations, along the lines of-- "if you see flashing lights behind you and don't feel safe pulling over, keep driving and call 911 . . . " you're supposed to drive to the nearest police station.

A cop must identify himself as a police officer, and if you have reason to distrust whether he in fact is (for example, not in uniform, in an unmarked car) you're permitted to take actions to make sure it's secure.

A guy showing up on your doorstep, demanding entry, who can't properly identify himself as a cop with a warrant . . . Again, you call 911. You don't have to door for someone who doesn't have a warrant. On the other hand, someone who does have a warrant can break down the door.

So you'd better be right.

[Hugh_Janus]

If the cop doesn't have a warrant, she doesn't have to open the door.
from what I read in that article, she does

[Deepsepia]

from what I read in that article, she does

No, no warrant, no entry . . . though there are exceptions. Cops in pursuit can enter a dwelling without a warrant, cops can enter with no warrant if they think someone's in danger.

Brand new Supreme Court decision related to this subject:

Police do not need a search warrant if, after knocking on a closed door and announcing their presence, they discern that evidence of a crime is being destroyed on the other side, the US Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the high court sought to clarify an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that police obtain a court-authorized search warrant before entering a private home.

The justices said in certain emergency circumstances a warrant is not necessary, provided that law enforcement officials act reasonably in compliance with Fourth Amendment protections and do not threaten to violate them.

The case involved a dispute over whether police in Lexington, Ky., were justified in the events that led to the arrest and conviction of Hollis King for drug trafficking.

Police were in pursuit of an individual who had just purchased crack cocaine during an undercover sting operation. Uniformed police officers followed the suspect into an apartment complex, but did not see which of two apartments he entered – the door on the right or the door on the left.

As they approached, police noticed a strong odor of marijuana coming from under the door on the left. They assumed the suspect was hiding in that apartment. (In fact, he had entered the door on the right.)

Police knocked on the door on the left, announcing their presence. When no one answered, they pounded on the door. After hearing noises suggesting evidence was being destroyed, the police kicked the door open.

Once inside the apartment, they noticed marijuana and powder cocaine in open view. A subsequent search revealed crack cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

Mr. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison. On appeal, his lawyer argued that the police violated King’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to obtain a search warrant before entering the apartment.

An intermediate appellate court disagreed and upheld the conviction, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed. The state high court said that police could not rely on the so-called “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement when police themselves created the exigency used to justify the subsequent warrantless search.

In King’s case, the Kentucky Supreme Court said, the warrantless search of the apartment was improper because it was reasonably foreseeable by the police that the occupants of the apartment would start destroying evidence once officials banged on the door, and announced: “Police-police-police.”

That action would then create the emergency that would be used to justify breaking down the door and conducting the search without a warrant, the Kentucky high court said.

In reversing that decision on Monday, the US Supreme Court said the correct test is not whether the actions of police might trigger the attempted destruction of evidence. The proper test, the court said, is whether police conducted themselves in a reasonable manner prior to the emergency that required the warrantless search.

“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion.

“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue,” he wrote.

Justice Alito drew the distinction between officers knocking on a door and announcing their presence versus a police officer threatening to kick down the door unless it is opened immediately. In the first example, if officers suddenly detected sounds of evidence being destroyed their warrantless entry would be justified. But in the second example, it would most likely not be justified, he said.

In a lone dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Monday’s decision would arm the police with a way to routinely by-pass Fourth Amendment search warrant requirements in drug cases.

“In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down,” she said. “Never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

Justice Ginsburg said that in her view the emergency cited by police to justify the warrantless search must already exist when police arrive at the scene, not subsequent to their arrival and prompted by their own conduct.

She said there was nothing in the record suggesting that police – before knocking – couldn’t have posted officers outside the residence while other officers sought a warrant authorizing their entry and search.

The Supreme Court decision establishes a rule for police conduct in situations in which an exigency exists. In King’s particular case, the Kentucky Supreme Court still needs to decide whether one existed. The high court remanded the case to decide that question. The case is Kentucky v. King (09-1272).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0516/Supreme-Court-No-warrant-needed-if-police-discern-destruction-of-evidence/%28page%29/2

[Loser]

From what my father explained to me, this is how it works. *32 year veteran officer*

IF an officer does not have probable cause or a warrant, they CANNOT enter your house without the home owners permission. Other wise it's considered Illegal search and seizure.

Probable cause can be a wide range of reasons including crime in progress, harboring a fugitive, persons in danger, smell of pot, etc...

If they just walk into your house without rhyme or reason, it's illegal, flat out. Burden of proof is on the officer in most probable cause cases. Meaning, if they can't prove they had probable cause to enter a house, they're fucked legally.

[Deepsepia]

If they just walk into your house without rhyme or reason, it's illegal, flat out. Burden of proof is on the officer in most probable cause cases. Meaning, if they can't prove they had probable cause to enter a house, they're fucked legally.

Yes.

But you do not "make the call" at the time whether they do or don't have probable cause.

The determination as to whether they have probable cause is for the Court to determine, not you . . .

[Loser]

Yes.

But you do not "make the call" at the time whether they do or don't have probable cause.

The determination as to whether they have probable cause is for the Court to determine, not you . . .

I wasn't arguing that part.

If a cop wants to enter your house, hes going to enter, and if you attempt to refuse your getting arrested.

[Deepsepia]

I wasn't arguing that part.

If a cop wants to enter your house, hes going to enter, and if you attempt to refuse your getting arrested.

Yes . . .

Today's Supreme Court decision is a bit worrisome, worth reading.

Basically, this is an issue where there's a lot of common ground between constitutional conservatives and ACLU types . . . and yet the Court just carved out a new exception, and a very "cops' judgment call" -- the idea that if the Cops think that a defendant is destroying evidence, that constitutes "exigent circumstances" which mean they don't have to have a warrant.

As Ruth Bader Ginzburg, the only dissenter, noted, this gives the Police a lot of latitude.

[deebakes]

<---- begins posing as police officer to enter women's locker room :oops:

[Deepsepia]

<---- begins posing as police officer to enter women's locker room :oops:

Well, stuff like that is one of the most common scenarios for cops misusing the badge, the other one would be ripping off drug dealers.

[AntZ]

Well, stuff like that is one of the most common scenarios for cops misusing the badge, the other one would be ripping off drug dealers.

There is also another problem, especially in the inner city, gangs posing as cops! Both uniformed and plain cloths, they gain entry and rip off, rape, or kill the victims. Sure, it doesn't happen every day, but it happens often enough where people now refuse to open doors when they hear: "Open up, it's the police"!

[Deepsepia]

There is also another problem, especially in the inner city, gangs posing as cops! Both uniformed and plain cloths, they gain entry and rip off, rape, or kill the victims. Sure, it doesn't happen every day, but it happens often enough where people now refuse to open doors when they hear: "Open up, it's the police"!

Is a very tough and pernicious problem, and it's why "impersonating a police officer" is such a serious crime.

I think the advice the police give is something like "if you have concerns if the cop is legitimate, call 911" -- but if they're on a warrant, they're not going to cool their heels outside the door while you make a call.

For folks in high crime neighborhoods, or who are themselves doing crime, these can be "life and death" decisions.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

There is also another problem, especially in the inner city, gangs posing as cops! Both uniformed and plain cloths, they gain entry and rip off, rape, or kill the victims. Sure, it doesn't happen every day, but it happens often enough where people now refuse to open doors when they hear: "Open up, it's the police"!


Is a very tough and pernicious problem, and it's why "impersonating a police officer" is such a serious crime.

I think the advice the police give is something like "if you have concerns if the cop is legitimate, call 911" -- but if they're on a warrant, they're not going to cool their heels outside the door while you make a call.

For folks in high crime neighborhoods, or who are themselves doing crime, these can be "life and death" decisions.

Yup, if it is actually a cop at the door and they are not serving a warrant and you don't feel comfortable or believe that the person is indeed an officer, the cop should have no problem with you calling 911 to verify who they are.