Replies

Let's use our brains a little, shall we?

First, this suit was filed days ago, yet involves an incident that occurred almost exactly two years ago.

Any chance that this was filed in a hurry to make sure it was filed before the end of some limitation period?

The incident, as described by the plaintiffs, involved the police entering the home without a warrant.

When can the police constitutionally enter a home without a warrant? Only when there is probable cause.

The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him.

The plaintiff's own filing admits that the fugitive had indeed been in that house very recently.

Unless she can demonstrate that the police knew that he was no longer in the house, their information was current and likely constituted probable cause.

Let's review class. Wideawake has implied that we have no brains, wideawake being presumably being exempt from this accusation.

Here's what the 4th Amendment says:

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.

Therefore, a warrant is required before there can be a lawful search, and a warrant shall not be issued without probable cause.

Case law and rulings on the 4th Amendment allow certain exceptions, including what the courts have called "exigent circumstances".

Exigent circumstances simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed, but there is still a probable cause requirement. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present. This includes when the police are in 'hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.' In this circumstance, so long as there is probable cause, police may follow the suspect into a residence and seize any evidence in plain view.

These circumstances do not seem to apply in this case. The fugitive was not seen fleeing into the home and there seems to be no evidence of continuing danger. The judge apparently threw out the drug charges on grounds that they had no warrant, and no probable cause existed for a search.

If wideawake's logic were to apply, then police could enter and search any property they wished by merely reported that they were looking for a fugitive and that they had "heard" that he or she might be inside the property. The Gestapo did this on a regular basis, but I am unaware of any court ruling that has found this to be Constitutional.

The judge in the criminal case threw out the charges. There's a good chance that the police did not have probable cause and only found out that the teen had recently left after they had entered illegally.

You don't know how long the criminal case took and jump to the conclusion that the lawsuit was filed in order to beat some unknown limitation.

I live in Post Falls. You clearly don't know anything about the case beside what you read. Why don't you try using your brains a little, would you?

“Any chance that this was filed in a hurry to make sure it was filed before the end of some limitation period?”

Would that have any impact on the facts of the case, even if we knew it to be true?

“The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him.”

Not according to the article: “police entered and said they were searching for a runaway juvenile”. A runaway juvenile is not the same thing as a criminal fugitive, and can’t constitute probable cause. Harboring a fugitive would be a crime, so if you suspected that they were doing that, it would be probable cause that a crime was being committed in the residence. Harboring a runaway juvenile is not a crime, therefore, it can’t constitute probable cause, and certainly not of the immanent variety that would preclude them obtaining a warrant before searching.

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.