Comments on Cop in the Hood: Question for Readers:

Should being an a-hole get to police get you locke...

2009-09-29T02:07:28.090-04:00

Should being an a-hole get to police get you locked up?

No. Contempt of Cop is not a valid reason to detain someone. Police often seem to forget that Sir Robert Peel who founded the police said: "The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
The police would do well to remember this. I understand that being a police officer can be a dangerous job at times, but this was your chosen career... You do not deserve any more respect than a butcher, or a baker. This was your chosen profession, not something imposed on you. Adding to that, the very nature of police work is known to encourage people that are attracted to the power associated with policing, I generally don't hold a lot of respect for the police, which is a shame, because as you have shown PCM, good cops do exist. :)

Came across this blog while researching Crowley/Ga...

2009-08-03T23:32:41.792-04:00

Came across this blog while researching Crowley/Gates incident. Boy you LEO people and wannabes do not repeat do not understand the fourth amendment. The comments by anon are to the point. Crowley did a very poor job of investigation when he came upon the scene of possible BE in progress. As anon says the 911 call is not PC. If you think Gates is a suspect then exactly what makes him a suspect? Black man standing behind glass door. Bingo!!

It is up to Crowley to establish that Gates does not legally belong in the house not the other way around. LEOs would like you to believe that but that is not the constitutional standard.

This is really scarely stuff to believe that LEOs think they can get away with this kind of stuff. More 1983 suits are needed but most of the defendents are poor and LEOs get away with it.

I read the summary of the case and agree wholehear...

2009-07-31T01:06:09.541-04:00

I read the summary of the case and agree wholeheartedly with Motorcop. They have very little in common. In progress is the main factor, certain. Probably other things, too.

For what it's worth, I agree with the court decision in the case of the drunk driving home arrest. Those cops indeed had no right to enter that home. Shameful they thought or pretended they did.

Who is "they" and why do they care about...

2009-07-31T00:59:24.889-04:00

Who is "they" and why do they care about what you say on this blog?

We're not talking violent overthrow of the US Government. We're talking nuances of probable cause and the 4th Amendment.

Come again? Now c'mon Mr. Al...err... ...

2009-07-28T16:33:21.353-04:00

Come again?

Now c'mon Mr. Al...err... I mean Motorcop, you know how they can be.

'just read one case for me' I read it. Th...

2009-07-28T15:51:39.815-04:00

'just read one case for me'

I read it. The answer is simple. You're arguing an invalid precedent. The house in the Hopkins case was not a crime in progress. Crucial difference. Learn how precedent works my friend.

'They just use the handle to open up their own little investigations based on the handle'

Come again?

Did I have any probable cause to enter this hom...

2009-07-28T13:58:32.655-04:00
Did I have any probable cause to enter this home? Not really. And certainly not as it relates to the homeowner.

The probable cause does not need to be against the homeowner, but it does need to be probable cause of a crime. For example, if someone sees you and runs into a house, then you can't go into the house on the theory that they are a burglar or a drug courier. You have exigent circumstances (suspicion of burglary, suspicion of drug courier), but you don't have probable cause because these suspicions, while highly exigent, are mere possibilities and not probabilities.

Please, please, please, PCM -- just read one case for me:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/16/07-15102.pdf

And if you want to know why this case seems so different than the everyday practice that you observed, the answer is simple:

you have dealt with cases where the entry is an issue that comes up under the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary rule cases make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment (which is why the exclusionary rule should be (and might soon be) dumped). If you want to understand what the Fourth Amendment really means (and as a professor you should), then you really need to read a few section 1983 putative illegal entry cases, like the one cited above in this post, or Reardon (cited above), or (when it comes out) Gates v. Crowley.

you can logon and get a handle and still be anonymous

They just use the handle to open up their own little investigations based on the handle. Believe me, I know from whence I speak on that. I think all the anonymous comments, save one, have been the same person so it shouldn't be too hard to understand the flow.

Of course there's a chance we're wrong,...

2009-07-28T11:49:48.639-04:00
Of course there's a chance we're wrong, but that would mean police everywhere are acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally. I don't believe that.

Yeah, it's how we patrol in my dept. as well. I'm pretty sure we would have noticed all our cases getting dismissed if all these entries were illegal.

Like you've mentioned, 9 out of 10 people seemingly have no idea what their rights are. The one that always amuses me is the demand that they be allowed to call their lawyer from the back of my patrol car. Had a kid a couple months back that was absolutely sure I was only allowed to ask him three questions, like he was a genie or something.

Campbell, The entry is not for search or seizure. ...

2009-07-28T11:27:18.316-04:00
Campbell,
The entry is not for search or seizure. It can be to prevent harm to another person and can also be for an investigation of a felony crime in progress and can also be for officer safety.

Entry in and of itself does not (necessarily) require probably cause.

Let me give you another example: I'm chasing a suspected drug dealer and he runs into and breaks down the door of a house. Not his house. He runs through the house and out the back door.

Can I enter the house in pursuit? Yes. Can I then find drugs and arrest the (otherwise innocent) homeowner? Yes. Can I ask the homeowner to sit on a couch within lunging distance of a dresser before cuffing him? Yes. Can I then search the suspect (of course) and the couch and dresser he's near? Yes.

Did I have any probable cause to enter this home? Not really. And certainly not as it relates to the homeowner.

I'd write more but motorcop pretty much sums u...

2009-07-28T11:18:50.413-04:00
I'd write more but motorcop pretty much sums up all I have to say. Of course there's a chance we're wrong, but that would mean police everywhere are acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally. I don't believe that.

What motorcop says is how police act. It is how I acted. Morally right or morally wrong, that is how the law is applied in day-to-day situations. And these actions are (generally) backed up by the courts.

All you "anonymous" people, you can logo...

2009-07-28T11:10:27.523-04:00
All you "anonymous" people, you can logon and get a handle and still be anonymous. It would make the discussion easier.

Is that hypothetical domestic 911 call really prob...

2009-07-28T10:52:40.634-04:00
Is that hypothetical domestic 911 call really probable cause? Can I arrest based solely on that call? Am I entering for search and/or seizure? Or do I have situation where a reasonable person would believe that entry is necessary to prevent harm to another person?

See, here is why I don't think there was PC fr...

2009-07-28T10:12:02.067-04:00
See, here is why I don't think there was PC from tis particular 911 call:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124870309847783787.html

BONUS: The artie quotes Dolores Jones-Brown!

Either that or he wants anonymity for some weird r...

2009-07-28T08:20:26.822-04:00
Either that or he wants anonymity for some weird reason.

All these "anon" postings are very hard ...

2009-07-28T07:46:18.286-04:00
All these "anon" postings are very hard to follow because several parties are involved. If someone can't even take two seconds to assign themselves a nickname, then you have to wonder how much time they put into formulating their own opinions.

Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you...

2009-07-28T07:42:53.039-04:00
Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you with the McConney cite is the kind of things that are going to be considered in court if someone decides to challenge that entry.

McConney was no challenged the entry. He was challenging a failure to knock. The police won because they had both: (i) probable cause (in the form of warrants); plus (ii) exigent circumstances.

That is the same thing Sgt. Crowley will need to show when Prof. Gates takes him to court for unlawful entry: probable cause plus exigent circumstances. Look, people, its just not that hard.

ay we get a 911 call from a woman screaming that her husband has just stabbed her in a fight. She's now locked herself in the bedroom and is on the phone. The husband answers the door and tells us to piss off. We go in anyways and subsequently arrest the husband for the stabbing. You seem to think that since the 911 call isn't PC, and he didn't answer the door with the bloody knife his hand, you as his defense attorney are going to be able to get that case dismissed because we entered without PC or a warrant.

That kind of telephone call is probable cause, unless police have some real good reasons to think it is a prank.

On the other hand, if a neighbor calls up and says "I think my neighbor is beating his wife because I saw them swearing at each other in their driveway just now." then that is not probable cause and you don't get your freebie search.

The particular call in the Gates case was not probable cause. This is because pressing on a stuck door may just be a homeowner with a stuck door. Even the 911 caller in this case said that she didn't necessarily think a break-in was going on.

Sgt. Crowley had a chance to develop probable cause at the scene by talking to one of the witnesses (not the 911 caller,as it turns out). Instead Crowley stupidly declined to talk to the witness and go right in when he saw a black man in the house. The choice to proceed immediately into the house without giving the homeowner a chance to id first was both unConstitutional and racist. I honestly believe that he would have given an old white man a chance to id without coming in uninvited (which is what he should have done anyway). Not only did Crowley act illegally, but it was the sight of the black man that made him decide to break the law.

Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you wi...

2009-07-27T23:39:19.874-04:00
Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you with the McConney cite is the kind of things that are going to be considered in court if someone decides to challenge that entry.(this is aside from the Gates arrest, which as has been pointed out, took place outside the house)

Say we get a 911 call from a woman screaming that her husband has just stabbed her in a fight. She's now locked herself in the bedroom and is on the phone. The husband answers the door and tells us to piss off. We go in anyways and subsequently arrest the husband for the stabbing. You seem to think that since the 911 call isn't PC, and he didn't answer the door with the bloody knife his hand, you as his defense attorney are going to be able to get that case dismissed because we entered without PC or a warrant.

1. I didn't bring up McConney. Somebody inco...

2009-07-27T22:34:52.866-04:00
1. I didn't bring up McConney. Somebody incorrectly said that it showed that probable cause is not necessary for an exigent circumstances entry. I merely cleared up that error. If you want to read the relevant cases, then read Reardon and In re Sealed case cited above.

2. The exclusionary rule is but one remedy for when a policeman violates the Fourth Amendment with an illegal entry, but it is only for guilty people and therefore does not deter police. Remedies for innocent people are the more important ones for you to worry about. These include section 1983 actions and trespassing charges. I am more concerned about innocent homeowners. I could give two figs about guilty people.

3. Possible crime in progress means that the Fourth Amendment does not apply. *ay yi yi* When did you get back from Kandahar?

4. If the officer really believes that there are armed people in the house then he needs to act consistently with that professed belief. Otherwise his credibility is shot and it is safe to assume that everything he writes or says is a lie. It is a credibility issue.

5. The officer's status as a trespasser, acting outside the Fourth Amendment, is relevant to both Gates' justification defense to disorderly (and Crowley's knowledge of the same) as well as to the egregiousness of Crowley's failure to obey Massachusetts law by showing him the card.

'In that case the police had search and arrest...

2009-07-27T22:16:32.905-04:00
'In that case the police had search and arrest warrants'

Irrelevant. This case has nothing to do with search or arrest warrants so McConney is unrelated. You might as well be talking about Miranda or Terry stops. The cops were not there to search or seize. They were responding to a crime in progress.

'you are not allowed to go in'

Wrong. The law isn't about being "allowed" to go in or not. That proves to me you don't know your subject. The penalty for not having probable cause &/or lack of exigent is the evidence is quashed. Being "allowed" anything isn't even an issue. The cop isn't sent to bed without his supper if he doesn't have "permission." Because no search or seizure went down here your argument is pointless anyway. As you've been told repeatedly none of this matters. What happened in the house has NO BEARING on the arrest. The entire offense happened outside the house. There is no "fruits of the poisonous tree" issue here.

'it might cause you to go away without the neccessity of making a tough Fourth Amendment decision about entering a home uninvited'

Pure gibberish. It's a possible crime in process. No warrant, no seizure involved. No 4th Amendment issue. The homeowner was not identified until he provided his DL to the cop after the cop entered the premises. We don't need permission from someone who may be a perpetrator before we enter a house that may not even be his. It's baldly ridiculous to suggest the law requires this.

'you believe the putative homeowner really is the homeowner. And there goes your probable cause.'

More gibberish. Tactical considerations never enter into a PC test. The test is the officer's observations. If the defense tries to raise tactics in a PC challenge, the judge will disallow.

'probable cause determination needs to go into your report'

Pointless. That issue is irrelevant to this arrest. What happened in the house established a narrative for why the officer was there. He documented the entire event starting with his arrival at the scene. They could've been dancing in the house for all that matters. The crime happened 100% outside the house.

'If your basis is bogus, then you have violated the law and should be punished'

Says who? If a case is flawed, the officer isn't "punished." The case is dismissed. The officer had reasonable belief a crime in progress was occurring in the property. That's all he needed. The whole issue ONCE AGAIN about PC is irrelevant to the arrest. The offense happened 100% outside the house and was witnessed by many officers.

It's painfully clear to me you have never stepped inside a courtroom based on what you're posting here. I suggest you stop trying to teach nonsense to those who know the law. It's unproductive. The only reason I wasted my time typing all this is because there may be a slim chance you've been reading something and are seriously confused. If you're just a troll I'm sorry I wasted my time.

Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of...

2009-07-27T20:45:59.118-04:00
Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of guys think they can get rid of us on a domestic violence call with a "fuck off, you can't come in here without a warrant", with rather predictable results.

If there is probable cause of domestic violence then you get to go in. And your basis for this probable cause determination needs to go into your report. If your basis is bogus, then you have violated the law and should be punished. Preferably severely.

but those hands need to stay where I can see th...

2009-07-27T20:42:56.668-04:00
but those hands need to stay where I can see them.

And It also should be pointed out that if you really think the people in the house are armed, then going in alone and without backup is about the stupidest thing a policeman could do from a tactical standpoint. IOW, if you (or Sgt. Crowley) goes into the house, it is a way of indicating that you believe the putative homeowner really is the homeowner. And there goes your probable cause. QED.

Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of g...

2009-07-27T20:33:13.912-04:00
Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of guys think they can get rid of us on a domestic violence call with a "fuck off, you can't come in here without a warrant", with rather predictable results.

United States v. McConney In that case the...

2009-07-27T20:30:38.615-04:00
United States v. McConney

In that case the police had search and arrest warrants, which were presumably suported by . . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . . yup, you guessed . . .

. . . by this point . . .

. . . . haven't you? . . .

supported by probable cause. This is, of course, why upthd I pointed out that warrantless entry needed to be supported by probable cause. In a warrant situation, the probable cause issue has already been decided, at least tentatively, by a court. In a warrantless situation, the probable cause needs to come from the observations of the policemen and recited on their reports.

What's required, as stated very clearly in Uni...

2009-07-27T20:15:31.765-04:00
What's required, as stated very clearly in United States v. McConney.

"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."

And like motorcop said, we don't know who y...

2009-07-27T19:10:19.996-04:00
And like motorcop said, we don't know who you are. Until we verify you're the owner, disappearing isn't an option. This can all be done in a professional and courteous way, but those hands need to stay where I can see them.

If you don't have probable cause you are not allowed to go in. It is that simple. An equivocal 911 call, by itself, is not probable cause. If you think you have probable cause, then you are going to want to articulate it a heck of a lot better than Crowley did on his report. Talking to the witness when she is on-scene is a good start. What she tells you might save your life, or it might cause you to go away without the neccessity of making a tough Fourth Amendment decision about entering a home uninvited.

You sound like the type who will have to learn the hard way. O well. I just wish PCM would clue in because of the fact that he is supposed to be a teacher and not just a typical popo cheerleader.

Comments on Cop in the Hood: Question for Readers:

Should being an a-hole get to police get you locke...

Came across this blog while researching Crowley/Ga...

I read the summary of the case and agree wholehear...

Who is "they" and why do they care about...

Come again? Now c'mon Mr. Al...err... ...

'just read one case for me' I read it. Th...

Did I have any probable cause to enter this hom...

Of course there's a chance we're wrong,...

Campbell, The entry is not for search or seizure. ...

I'd write more but motorcop pretty much sums u...

All you "anonymous" people, you can logo...

Is that hypothetical domestic 911 call really prob...

See, here is why I don't think there was PC fr...

Either that or he wants anonymity for some weird r...

All these "anon" postings are very hard ...

Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you...

Anon, what I'm trying to get through to you wi...

1. I didn't bring up McConney. Somebody inco...

'In that case the police had search and arrest...

Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of...

but those hands need to stay where I can see th...

Take heart anon, you're not alone. Loads of g...

United States v. McConney In that case the...

What's required, as stated very clearly in Uni...

And like motorcop said, we don't know who y...