If that doesn't work, a point blank shotgun blast to the head should disable the trespassers.
Posted on 12/11/2013 10:01:38 AM PST by Altariel
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A woman has sued the city of Post Falls and police officials after her northern Idaho home was searched without a warrant.
In a lawsuit filed against the city, Police Chief Scot Haug, and several police officers in Coeur d'Alene's U.S. District Court last week, Melissa A. Miller contends she sustained physical injuries, emotional pain, lost wages and other damages because of the search.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“If they had entered into this home in search of a fugitive who turned out not to have been there recently or at all, then this would be an open and shut case of home invasion.”
Let me get this straight. You’re arguing that whether the police have probable cause or not depends on whether the tips they receive turn out to be right or not?
The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him....Wrong. It WAS NOT ‘hot pursuit.’ Or they would have had him.
Sometimes, the police even manage to get a warrant to carryout their criminal activities:
http://www.kctv5.com/story/23951053/leawood-family-seeks-7-million-for-swat-style
It’s still an egregious affront to our personal liberties, but you’re free to defend the behavior of the police if you wish.
I read about 4 screens of comments on this article, and every single one expressed outrage at the behavior. It used to be that these things were more 50-50. Not any more, especially in situations where it’s very difficult to see a justification from the police point of view. People are less willing to bend over backwards in this regard.
I’ve noticed that too. There has been a definite shift in FR opinion against the police.
Fugutive?? Runaway juvenile?
Where did you get they were pursuing him?
The article clearly said they were *searching* for a runaway, not pursuing someone.
You bring up an important point that makes exigent circumstances extremely unlikely to apply. Examples:
US v. Mongold, 12-7073 (10th Cir. 2013)-Officers entered a home after the door was opened in response to a knock. The officers smelled marijuana. They forced their way in to prevent the destruction of evidence. The court found the entry was unlawful. Before an officer can, without warrant, enter a home to prevent the destruction of evidence the following criteria must be met:
a. The entry must be based on probable cause.
b. There must be a “serious crime”.
c. The destruction of evidence is likely.
The court determined that lacking probable cause of distribution or trafficking of marijuana, the odor only indicates simple possession, which in Oklahoma where the case originated is a misdemeanor offense. Therefore, the “serious crime” requirement was not met.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
–
SEVENTH CIRCUIT (ILLINOIS, INDIANA,
WISCONSIN)
•
U.S. v. Ellis
, 499 F.3d 686 (7thCir. 2007): No probable cause with exigent circumstances in search of home where drugs were discovered, where officers asked defendant to open the door, using the ruse that they were investigating a missing child, broke down the door after hearing movement in the home, and did a protective sweep.
A missing juvenile without a serious crime, no one in danger, and no risk of destruction of vital evidence does not seem to rise to the level that would justify exigent circumstances. The police may have been able to get a judge to issue a search warrant, but since they didn’t try, the court will probably not be kind to them.
I understand all that.
Yet people, like this one, “wideawake” sit up here and defend this bullsh*t.
The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him.
Enlighten me, in exactly what part of the story was the “runaway teenager” described as a fugitive? And the occupants complied as much as they were legally required to, because someone says yeah they were here but they left does not give the police probable cause to believe or suspect that the “runaway teen” was still there. You go ahead and give up your rights and let police search through you home on a whim but not me, I kinda still believe in that old Constitutionay thingy.
If that doesn't work, a point blank shotgun blast to the head should disable the trespassers.
step one - place hands lovingly on jackboot.
step two - apply tongue, liberally.
The Fourth Amendment means what it says, not what illiterates wish that it said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.