If They Came To Your Door....

[jtmaze]

These all sound good and this happened to a LEO friend of mine looking for a fugitive a while ago. My friend and a deputy sheriff knocked on someone's door and asked if they could search the property looking for the fugitive and got a yes. Looked under house in house and asked to look in one room with a closed door and the property owner opened door with pot plants in room. The LEOs looked then said he is not in there and left an came back with proper warrants to search for drugs. Property owner was not too smart because it was still there and confiscated. Tim said when you let them in they can only look from whatever or whomever you have permission to look for. LEOs have a hard enough job why should we make it harder.

[gregintenn]

These all sound good and this happened to a LEO friend of mine looking for a fugitive a while ago. My friend and a deputy sheriff knocked on someone's door and asked if they could search the property looking for the fugitive and got a yes. Looked under house in house and asked to look in one room with a closed door and the property owner opened door with pot plants in room. The LEOs looked then said he is not in there and left an came back with proper warrants to search for drugs. Property owner was not too smart because it was still there and confiscated. Tim said when you let them in they can only look from whatever or whomever you have permission to look for. LEOs have a hard enough job why should we make it harder.

I want to believe that were I that officer, I would have finished the search, closed the door back, thanked the guy for his assistance, left, and forgot all about what I saw.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Yeah I am usually against unwarranted searches but something like this I would gladly allow them to enter. Not just to avoid the possible legal hassle that may follow but to avoid, as you kind of pointed out, the media branding me a terrorist sympathizer. Then even if they do bow out to my rights you have to consider the police harassment that would come at a later date.

As stated, I am all for pissing off a LEO by refusing a search in most circumstances. But yeah...this is one case I would temporarily forfeit my right for.

As for if they found a firearm, as long as it is legal you shouldn't give a flying hoot.

I don't think they have a "blanket" warrant but either have a judge on standby for them or would just assume that the suspect is in your house making you say that and technically have reasonable cause. In this instance I think it would be difficult to: One find a lawyer to go after the state for looking for the suspect on/in your property and two a judge who would side with you. Just based on the circumstances.

[RobertNashville]

The rub here is that in order to legally search your property YOU must be suspected of a crime...

I don't think that is a 100% true statement...I don't believe it is necessary that YOU must be a suspect in any way.
 
I may be absolutely wrong on this but if a law enforcement believes or have reason to believe that someone they are pursuing may be inside of your residence, that is sufficient cause to compel a search with a search warrant (i.e. to legally search your property). Of course they would have to convince a judge of that but the point is, I don't think they have to convince a judge that YOU personally are a suspect in a crime. Edited April 19, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

I figure if I give them permission to look for a fugitive they're going to act totaly different than if they search my house without my permission. Say yes and they search. Say NO and they search anyways except this time they tear your house apart doing it. But they're going to come in anyways, so why not let them?

 

Dave S

[LagerHead]

I don't think that is a 100% true statement...I don't believe it is necessary that YOU must be a suspect in any way.
 
I may be absolutely wrong on this but if a law enforcement believes or have reason to believe that someone they are pursuing may be inside of your residence, that is sufficient cause to compel a search with a search warrant (i.e. to legally search your property). Of course they would have to convince a judge of that but the point is, I don't think they have to convince a judge that YOU personally are a suspect in a crime.

 

I concede that your understanding may in fact be correct. Of course my stance on the issue doesn't change.  :cool:

[mikegideon]

If they didn't have a signed warrant in their hand, with my name & address on it, specifying exactly what they were searching for as required by the Constitution of the United States of America, I'd probably tell them to "go suck off a goat".

But I like being roughed up & handcuffed so don't take that as legal advice.

 

Yep. Those boys are pretty pumped up right now. Good way to get carpet burns on your teeth. :)

[Fourtyfive]

Wow , just wow , if you lived in that area and refused a search of your home ; good luck.

[45guy]

Without a search warrant the answer is NO, regardless of the circumstances without a warrant the answer is NO.

[RED333]

I would like to hear from Chip Law firm on this.

I will be making a call to my lawyer on Monday.

[npgunner]

I would like to hear from Chip Law firm on this.

I will be making a call to my lawyer on Monday.

Let us know what they say if you don't mind

[zapfbroad]

So if this was a suspect that had shot some people robbing a bank I think a lot of the points raised here would be valid.
Since they have declared him a terrorist however, I imagine that they have some piece of legislation in place that permits them to suspend your 4th amendment rights in order to conduct their search, ya know, in the interest of national security. Around noon the twitter sphere seemed to alight, slightly, with people starting to become agitated at the 'lockdown'. I told my wife early this morning they have basically declared a de facto martial law-lite without using that language. In this situation, I personally wouldn't care too strongly about their desire to search. Id feel more restless with the 'suggestion' to stay indoors.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[DaveS]

From a lawyer's website:

 

 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.

 

Dave S

[NRA]

I really have never seen so many paranoid people on one forum in my life, really people?

[gun sane]

 

I really have never seen so many paranoid people on one forum in my life, really people?

 

 

50 years ago I might have agreed with you.

[zapfbroad]

Exigent Circumstances

that was the term I couldn't remember that is used for the no knock entries for suspected murderers, drug dealers, etc.

[npgunner]

 

I really have never seen so many paranoid people on one forum in my life, really people?

 

is there a difference in paranoid? and just not wanting LEO in my business? there's nothing in my house i'd be afriad for them to find ... i just don't want them in my house.

[DaveS]

Exigent Circumstances

that was the term I couldn't remember that is used for the no knock entries for suspected murderers, drug dealers, etc.

I couldn't remember how to spell it LOL!

 

Dave S

[zapfbroad]

The Patriot Act expands all these exceptions to the probable-cause requirement. Section 215 of the act permits the FBI to go before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for "any tangible things" connected to a terrorism suspect. The order would be granted as long as the FBI certifies that the search is "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities [spying]." But the FBI would not need to meet the stronger standard of probable cause.

The Patriot Act now authorizes this court to issue search orders directed at any U.S. citizen who the FBI believes may be involved in terrorist activities. Such activities may, in part, even involve First Amendment protected acts such as participating in non-violent public protests.

In Section 215, "any tangible things" may include almost any kind of property--such as books, documents, and computers. The FBI may also monitor or seize personal records held by public libraries, bookstores, medical offices, Internet providers, churches, political groups, universities, and other businesses and institutions.

The Patriot Act prohibits third parties served with Section 215 orders such as Internet providers and public librarians to inform anyone that the FBI has conducted a search of their records.

Section 216 of the Patriot Act extends pen-trap orders to include e-mail and web browsing. The FBI can ask Internet service providers to turn over a log of the web sites a person visits and the addresses of e-mail coming to and from the person's computer.

Another area of concern is Section 213 of the Patriot Act. It authorizes so-called "sneak- and-peek" searches for all federal criminal investigations. When applying for a search warrant, officers may show that there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification . . . may have an adverse result." If the judge approves, then the FBI can delay notifying a citizen about the search for a "reasonable period." Thus, the FBI may search a citizen's home or business in secret. The FBI says these searches may be necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence or to keep from jeopardizing an ongoing secret investigation.

[RichardR]

I really have never seen so many paranoid people on one forum in my life, really people?

I wouldn't neccessarily call it "paranoid" for law-abiding homeowners to decide to refuse to submit to a warrantless intrusion by the authorities.

In fact the 4th Amendment was written into our Bill of Rights in order to protect us from exactly this sort of thing, or do you think that our founding fathers were a bunch of paranoids too?

[RED333]

Did a fast search and found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

 

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.^[1]

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.^[2]

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.^[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.^[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.^[5]

Edited April 19, 2013 by RED333

[Murgatroy]

Eh, I want this bastard caught. Dead or alive is fine with me. If me allowing the police to come into my house, open all my closets and shine lights under my beds helps them catch him, c'mon in.

 

If I tell them no, they can't come in without a warrant, they go get a warrant, and then they come in, open all my closets and shine lights under the bed. I just cost them valuable time, and considerable stress in a pretty bad situation and all it did was prevent the inevitable for an hour, maybe two.

 

This is a stressful situation for everyone involved, those officers are looking for a terrorist. A killer who doesn't care about anything. They aren't jack booted thugs come to haul me off to an extermination camp for being a free thinker.

 

Remember, the question was about this scenario.

 

If the police showed up unannounced at my door tomorrow, without a valid reason, and wanted to come open all my closets and shine lights under my beds, yeah, I would ask for a warrant. But there isn't a terrorist running around my neighborhood throwing bombs at anyone with a badge. I think some of you might want to remember the circumstances in Boston right now.

[LagerHead]

I love it. Sticking up for your 2nd Amendment rights makes you a patriot of the highest order, worthy of praise, medals, and parads. But stick up for your 4th Amendment rights and you're paranoid. You win. The argument is not worth having if you're not willing to hear. 

[Will H]

I would let them in.  I understand my rights under the 4A, and reserve the right to tell them to GTFO, but at the same time if they are looking for a murderer then yeah, come in and look around.  

[DaveTN]

They would be looking for murders that killed and maimed my fellow citizens. They would not be violating my rights by asking to look and I would not be giving up any rights by agreeing so as to not impede their investigation.

I doubt many people turn them down and if someone did and I was an Officer I would be concerned that the guy may be standing on the other side of the door holding a gun to their head. I would secure the house with Officers to wait for a warrant and move on to the next house.

Even with a warrant they can only look where the items they are searching for could be; in this case a person. They aren’t going to go rummaging through drawers.

And no, when searching for suspects they don’t have to be accusing you of a crime to search your property.

This is all assuming no Officers were chasing the suspect or saw him in your home. If that is the case hot pursuit and plain view could kick in and no warrant would be needed.